Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.
The petitioners' father was a holder of the licenced arms weapon and died on 22.3.1998 The petitioner, being the son and an heir, applied for transfer of the arms licence in his favour. This application has remained pending since 1998. The petitioner being harassed by the lackadaisical attitude of the respondents approached this Court. This Court entertained the writ petition and directed the District Magistrate to file his personal affidavit explaining the delay in disposal of the application.
A counter affidavit has been filed indicating that the licence has now been transferred in favour of the petitioner. In paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit it has been alleged that the previous District Magistrate had disposed of almost 3500 pending applications and that the petitioner's application was not decided since the petitioner did not approach the then District Magistrate.
In the light of these averments, the District Magistrate has stated that there was no undue delay and, since now, the petitioner's application has been decided, consequently, the matter has become infructuous.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that there was no justification on the part of the respondents in not deciding the application. Once an application is filed, it is incumbent upon the authority to decide the application and the contention that the petitioner should approach the District Magistrate and get his application decided does not hold water. The approach of the respondents as alleged in paragraph 15 is deprecated. The Court is of the opinion that for the undue delay in disposal of the petitioner's application for transfer of the arms licence as an heir of the deceased requires exemplary cost to be imposed.
Since the licence has now been transferred, the writ petition is disposed of directing the District Magistrate to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the litigation to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of filing a certified copy of this order, failing which, it would be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application in this writ petition for recovery of the cost.