T. Vaiphei, J.

1. In this writ petition, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of permission to him by the State-Respondents to purchase flat No. S302 located in Ferndale Apartments situate at M.G. Road, Shillong, which, according to him, is in gross violation of the provisions the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 ("the Act" for short) and the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation), Rules, 1974 ("the Rules") and of the grant of permission for the same flat in favor of the Respondent No. 8, who is a non-tribal.

2. For better appreciation of the controversy, I may briefly refer to the material facts of the case as projected by the Petitioner in his writ petition. In the year 2002, the Respondent No. 7 started a project for construction of flats at Ferndale Compound, M.G. Road, Shillong. He accordingly filed an application on 30-8-2002 to the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong (Respondent 5) seeking a certificate for allowing him to transfer the flats to prospective buyers. The Respondent No. 4 thereafter by his letter dated 22-10-2002 informed the Respondent No. 5 that the Government had no objection to his proposal to transfer the flats which fall within the European Ward. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 7 by his letter dated 12-9-2008 informed the Respondent No. 5 about the completion of the construction of the flats and sought for his approval for registration of the same. The application accompanied by a list of prospective flat owners, the flat numbers and the value of the flats was forwarded to the Respondent No. 4. The Respondent No. 7 by the letter dated 15-5-2009 submitted a fresh list of purchasers of the flats with the area and the rate per flat to the Respondent No. 5. This was followed by the issuance of the notice under Rule 6(1) of the Rules by the Respondent No. 6 vide Memo dated 18-5-2009 inviting intending purchasers among the tribals in respect of flat No. Section 302 measuring about 1754 square feet at a quoted price of Rs.15,83,520/- and giving 30 days' time to respond to the notice and to give in writing the intention of the purchasers to purchase the same.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he, in response to the aforesaid notice dated 18-5-2009, forwarded his application dated 10-6-2009 to the Respondent No. 5 and conveyed his intention to purchase the said flat and offered to purchase the same at Rs.15,83,520/- as quoted in the notice. The Respondent No. 6 then forwarded the application of the Respondent No. 7 along with the application of the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 4 for necessary action. As a tribal purchaser, he had hoped that the permission for the transfer and registration of the said flat would be granted to him, but he did not receive any communication from the Respondent authorities about his application till the second week of December, 2009. When the Respondent authorities refused to give information about the fate of his application, he was constrained to file an application under the Right to Information Act on 16-12-2009 seeking information from the Office of the Respondents No. 4 and 5. The Public Information Officer of the Office of the Respondents No. 4 and 5 ultimately informed the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 4 granted the permission to the Respondent No. 8. Surprised by this development, he again filed the application dated 22-1-2010 under the RTI Act to the Office of the Respondent No. 4 for supply of some documents and information. It is under the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the Petitioner filed this writ petition for quashing the permission dated 9-12-2009 granted to the Respondent No. 8 for transfer of the said flat to him and for directing the State Respondents to grant the permission to him instead.

4. The writ petition is opposed by the Respondent authorities and the private Respondents by filing their respective counter-affidavits. The Respondent authorities admit in their affidavit that