K.V. Venkatesh vs Taluka Executive Magistrate and another

Smt. T. N. Majuladevi, learned High Court Government Advocate, is directed to take notice for the respondents.

By consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

This is another dismal story of inordinate delay and non-disposal despite a direction from this Court issued in exercise of power conferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Unfortunately, since ho time limit was specified in the direction issued, respondent 1 was not deterred by the consequences of a blatant defiance of the Court''s order which would have landed him in contempt proceedings. This is one of those instances which justify the interference of the Court in its unenviable role of a senior partner in public administration. The delay as well as administrative lethargy of respondent I call for necessary action by the authorities who are supposed to supervise the functioning of respondent 1.

On 7-3-1985, this Court allowed Writ Petition No. 22688 of 1981 directing respondent-2 therein (the Taluk Executive Magistrate, Magadi Taluk, Magadi) to hold fresh enquiry and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties concerned.

The grievance of the petitioner is that, even to this day, no steps have been taken by respondent-1 in this writ petition, to hold an enquiry. Since there has been inordinate delay and uncertainty in the disposal of the case by respondent-1, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that a mandate should be issued from this Court directing respondent-1 to hold and complete the enquiry in accordance with law and dispose of the case within a specified time limit.

It is the bureaucratic inactivity of the kind self-evident in this case which is impeding the dawn of a new administrative culture. Exercising a discretion not vested in it, acting without jurisdiction, not assigning reasons where reasons ought to be given and to cap it all, non-performance have been the bane of the administration. The Court cannot brook the pampered pagans of public administration. Even an order and a direction of this Court has gone unheeded by a Taluk Executive Magistrate even though the said order and direction were issued as far back as on 7-3-1985. The only question is whether the conduct of respondent-1 is an act of defiance or an act of total indifference without realisation of its implications on the rights of the parties who approach the decision making authority whether judicial or quasi-judicial in dispensing justice. Apart from the fact that the delay defeats justice, the well settled principle in administrative law is that total dormice amounts to abuse of discretion. (Teh Cheng Poh v. Public Prosecutor, Malaysia (1980) AC 458). The conduct of respondent-1 in not respecting a direction issued by this Court is despicable to say the least. What is expected of a Government servant is a conduct which is in keeping with human bureaucracy. The Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976, is a special legislative enactment brought into force for liberating from pecuniary bondage what are known as the "debtors" as defined under the Act. If the officials who are invested with the power to administer the Act are blind to the intend-merit of the Legislature and abdicate their responsibility despite statutory obligation, the Act would become an atrophied relic reducing the justice-delivery system to nought. It is time to stem institutionalised procrastination.

For the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition and pass the following order :

Respondent-1 shall carry out the direction issued by this Court on 7-3-1985 in Writ Petition No. 22688 of 1981 by holding a fresh enquiry with reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and dispose of the same in accordance with law within ninety days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A copy of this order shall be communicated to respondent-1 forthwith.

In the circumstances of the case. 1 award costs of Rs. 500/- payable by respondent-1 to the petitioner for not only unreasonable delay but also for the failure to discharge his statutory obligation.

Smt. T. N. Manjuladevi, learned Government Advocate, is permitted to file her memo of appearance within two weeks from today,

Petition allowed.