1. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 2.4.2012, Sri Sanjay Kumar, District Magistrate, Gorakhpur is present. He has also filed an affidavit stating that after this Court's order dated 2.4.2012 immediate steps were taken and the recovery certificate dated 5.2.2011 was executed and the amount was realized and deposited in the Court of District Judge/ M.A.C.T., Gorakhpur on 4.4.2012 i.e. within two days after this Court's order dated 2.4.2012. In the entire affidavit, there is not even a whisper about lapse in execution of recovery certificate issued on 5.2.2011 as to what was done by respondent no. 2 for executing the aforesaid recovery certificate for the last almost 14 months. The laxity, inaction and arbitrariness on the part of respondent no. 2 is apparent.
2. In fact the authorities' approach shows that pendency of anything for several months or years make no difference to them. They treat it their right and privilege not to discharge statutory duties and functions for any length of time, without having any accountability or responsibility to the sovereign, namely the people of this country. The laxity on the part of respondent No.2 is obvious and evident. When an official like a District Magistrate chose to remain inactive showing apathy to his statutory functions, a common man feels extremely helpless. It also gives an impression as if the concerned statutory authority is keeping the matter pending for reasons other than bona fide. He is trying to encourage corrupt activities or corruption itself. This is a kind or facet of corruption. Making observations on various facets of corruption, this Court in Mithilesh Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45893 of 2008 decided on 18.11.2010 said in paras 52 to 55 of the judgment as under:
"52. In general the well accepted meaning of corruption is the act of corrupting or of impairing integrity, virtue, or moral principle; the state of being corrupted or debased; lost of purity or integrity; depravity; wickedness; impurity; bribery. It further says, "the act of changing or of being changed, for the worse; departure from what is pure, simple, or correct; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain."
53. Though in a civilised society, corruption has always been viewed with particular distaste to be condemned and criticised by everybody but still one loves to engage himself in it if finds opportunity, ordinarily, since it is difficult to resist temptation. It is often, a kind, parallel to the word 'bribery', meaning whereof in the context of the politicians or bureaucrats, induced to become corrupt. The Greek Philosopher Plato, in 4th Century BC said, "in the Republic that only politicians who gain no personal advantage from the policies they pursued would be fit to govern. This is recognised also in the aphorism that those who want to hold power are most likely those least fit to do so." While giving speech before the House of Lords William Pitt in the later half of 18th Century said, "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it." Lord Acton in his letter addressed to Bishop Creighton is now one of the famous quotation, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
54. Corruption is a term known to all of us. Precise meaning is illegal, immoral or unauthorized act done in due course of employment but literally it means "inducement (as of a public official) by improper means (as bribery) to violate duty (as by committing a felony)." It is an specially pernicious form of discrimination. Apparently its purpose is to seek favourable, privileged treatment from those who are in authority. No one would indulge in corruption at all if those who are in authority, discharge their service by treating all equally.
55. We can look into it from another angle. Corruption also violates human rights. It discriminates against the poor by denying them access to public services and preventing from exercising their political rights on account of their incapability of indulging in corruption, of course on account of poverty and other similar related factors. Corruption is, therefore, divisive and makes a significant contribution to social inequality and conflict. It undermines respect for authority and increases cynicism. It discourages participation of individuals in civilised society and elevates self interest as a guide to conduct. In social terms we can say that corruption develops a range bound field of behaviour, attitude and beliefs. Corruption is antithesis of good governance and democratic politics. It is said, that when corruption is pervasive, it permeates every aspect of people's lives. It can affect the air they breathe, the water they drink and the food they eat. If we go further, we can give some terminology also to different shades of corruption like, financial corruption, cultural corruption, moral corruption, idealogical corruption etc. The fact remains that from whatever angle we look into it, the ultimate result borne out is that, and the real impact of corruption is, the poor suffers most, the poverty groves darker, and rich become richer. "
3. The respondents being "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its officers are public functionaries. In our Constitution, sovereignty vest in the people. Every limb of constitutional machinery therefore is obliged to be people oriented. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour. It is high time that this Court should remind respondents that they are expected to perform in a more responsible and reasonable manner so as not to cause undue and avoidable harassment to the public at large. The respondents have the support of entire machinery and various powers of statute. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match such might of State or its instrumentalities. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impressible. This may harm the common man personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption, thrive and prosper in society due to lack of public resistance. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting mostly succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. It is on account of, sometimes, lack of resources or unmatched status which give the feeling of helplessness. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. This is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention are being allowed to linger on and remain unattended. No authority can allow itself to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Public administration no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields action of administrative authority but where it is found that the exercise of power is capricious or other than bona fide, it is the duty of the Court to take effective steps and rise to occasion otherwise the confidence of the common man would shake. It is the responsibility of Court in such matters to immediately rescue such common man so that he may have the confidence that he is not helpless but a bigger authority is there to take care of him and to restrain arbitrary and arrogant, unlawful inaction or illegal exercise of power on the part of the public functionaries.
4. In our system, the Constitution is supreme, but the real power vest in the people of India. The Constitution has been enacted "for the people, by the people and of the people". A public functionary cannot be permitted to act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man.
5. Regarding harassment of a common man, the Apex Court, referring to observations of Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. Vs. Broome, 1972 AC 1027 and Lord Devlin in Rooks Vs. Barnard and others 1964 AC 1129, in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta JT 1993 (6) SC 307 said:
"An Ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law....... A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it...........Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous." (para 10)
6. The above observation as such has been reiterated in Ghaziabad Development Authorities Vs. Balbir Singh JT 2004 (5) SC 17.
7. In the case of Registered Society Vs. Union of India and Others (1996) 6 SCC 530 the Apex court said as under:
"No public servant can say "you may set aside an order on the ground of mala fide but you can not hold me personally liable" No public servant can arrogate in himself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary".
8. In the case of Shivsagar Tiwari Vs. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 558 the Apex Court has held as follows:
"An arbitrary system indeed must always be a corrupt one. There never was a man who thought he had no law but his own will who did not soon find that he had no end but his own profit."
9. In the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction and Another AIR 1996 SC 715 has held as follows:
"A democratic Government does not mean a lax Government. The rules of procedure and/or principles of natural justice are not meant to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution. The wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is duty of all of us to ensure that they do grind steadily and grind well and truly. The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft, supine and spineless."
10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in my view for the inordinate delay and inaction in executing recovery certificate, it is only respondent no. 2 who is responsible and none else. Hence the ends of justice would meet in case respondent no. 2 is saddled with responsibility of paying interest on the amount under recovery i.e. Rs. 58,308/-.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents 1 and 2 to pay simple interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum on Rs. 58,308/- for the period from date of receipt of recovery certificate till the amount was realized. The amount of interest as directed above shall be paid to petitioner at the first instance by respondent no. 1 but it shall have liberty to recover the aforesaid amount from the officials who held Office of respondent no. 2 during the period in question.
12. Petitioner shall also be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs. 2,000/-.
Dt. 10.4.2012 PS