Administrative inaction stalling government welfare schemes for landless persons constitutes a failure of statutory duty.

The sixty-three petitioners, residents of Ambedkar Colony and belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, are landless persons residing on "Kaiser-i-Hind" land (Thana No. 236, Khata No. 377) under makeshift arrangements.

In February 2010, the Additional Collector-cum-Secretary, District Urban Development Authority, Bhojpur (Respondent No. 4) requested the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 7) to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to facilitate the construction of houses for the petitioners under the Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (I.H.S.D.P.) Scheme.

Despite a favorable report from the Circle Officer (Respondent No. 6) and multiple representations from the petitioners over sixteen years, the respondent authorities failed to issue the NOC or settle the land, leaving the matter pending.

1. Whether the respondent authorities failed in their statutory duty to implement government welfare schemes by delaying the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and land settlement since 2010.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a time-bound direction for the disposal of their representations regarding land settlement under the I.H.S.D.P. Scheme.

The Court applied the Constitutional principle of equal rights for all citizens, specifically focusing on the State's duty to provide basic amenities to the poor and landless.

The court relied on the doctrine that holding a position of power carries an "onerous responsibility" to act in consonance with settled legal principles rather than "whims and fancies".

The court emphasized the mandatory execution of social welfare schemes (like I.H.S.D.P.) intended to provide dwelling houses to marginalized categories under the administrative law framework of discharging statutory duties without "callous, indifferent, and reckless" delays.

The Court observed that the matter had been languishing since 2010 solely due to the "sheer negligence" and "callous approach" of government officers.

The Court noted that while the land was identified and a request for an NOC was made by the Additional Collector based on the Circle Officer's report, the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 7) displayed a "scant regard" for these official communications.

The Court reasoned that such administrative inertia frustrates the intent of government welfare schemes and causes immense suffering to landless citizens.

The Court concluded that the respondents were under a legal obligation to discharge their duties toward the realization of housing rights for the Scheduled Caste petitioners, rather than sitting over the matter indefinitely.

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Executive Engineer, the Additional Collector, and the District Magistrate of Bhojpur to resolve the petitioners' grievances and representations as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks.

If representations are missing from official records, petitioners were granted two weeks to refile them, after which the authorities must act within the stipulated eight-week timeline.