Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is a strange case where statutory application for grant of fire-arm licence was submitted by petitioner admittedly in 1990 but the matter was kept pending by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur for the last 22 years and it did not pass any order either way on the petitioner’s application. Aggrieved, petitioner was forced to file this writ petition. This Court, when entertained this matter on 7.5.2012, was surprised to see as to how the application of petitioner was lying pending for the last almost 22 years and, therefore, passed following order:

“As prayed, put up on 9.5.2012 to enable learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to why and in what circumstances petitioner’s application for grant of fire-arm licence is pending since 1990.”

2. Today, learned Standing Counsel stated that as soon as he communicated the order, he has been informed that fire-arm licence has been granted to petitioner. He has also received a letter from District Magistrate, Jaunpur wherefrom it emerges that requisite reports and recommendations for grant of fire-arm licence to petitioner were made by various authorities in 1991-92 itself but since the matter remained pending and unattended on the part of respondent No. 2, with the passage of time fresh police report was required and after obtaining the same, order for grant of fire-arm licence in favour of petitioned has been passed.

3. This Court has dealt with these matters for quite sometime in the past and almost everyday during aforesaid period came across tens and hundreds of cases raising complaint that statutory authority under Arms Act is keeping the matter pending for unreasonably long time and showing total laxity and inaction in passing appropriate order. On the statement made by learned Standing Counsel the writ petitions are being summarily disposed of directing the District Magistrates to pass orders within a specified time. The situation created by such inaction and apathy is really very unhappy and disheartening. What this Court actually doing in all these matter is that the statutory authority is being reminded of its statutory obligation that an application filed under a provision of statute has to attain finality and cannot be kept pending indefinitely. The burden increased on the Court by such kind of petitions reflects only lack of governance on the part of authorities of Government. The situation is also not being attended by higher officials of Government by requiring the statutory authority to attend its statutory functions with reasonable expeditiousness and attentiveness. This is also disturbing. This Court has taken note of the Government Orders issued by Government of India as well as State of Uttar Pradesh requiring the concerned District Magistrates to dispose of applications submitted for grant of fire-arm licence ordinarily within three months but these Government Orders have also not attained their objective and gone in vain. If the District Magistrates do not find sufficient time to take up these matters, it is for the Government to evolve out an appropriate system for expeditious disposal of such matters but maintaining status quo in such matters and thereby causing spate of litigation in this case Court, generated due to total inaction on the part of Government authorities, is something to be curbed and removed. A kind of citizen charter in respect to some of services has now been imposed by U.P. Government. This is really insufficient. Its ambit needs be expended. The peoples aspirations of disposal of their applications or other matters by executives reflecting upon their day-to-day life, needs be attended immediately and within time. Apathy any longer may cause people’s outburst which may be difficult to counter. It is high time when appropriate measures be taken lest it is too late.

4. However, since the petitioner’s application for grant of fire-arm licence has now been disposed of as stated by learned Standing Couns