Public authorities are required to provide explicit reasons for rejection of applications to ensure transparency and allow rectification of deficiencies.

ORDER :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. S. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.

2. In view of the limited nature of issue involved and as the learned counsel for the respondents have received the necessary instructions, this writ petition is taken up for consideration at the motion stage itself, as agreed to by the learned counsel for all the parties.

3. The two petitioners were the wife and the daughter respectively of one Late Nagendra Nath. The case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition, in brief, is that he is the owner of a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 10 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 244 & Khiraj Myadi Patta no. 176, Class – Bari, situate at Village – Kurshakati, Mouza – Chapar, Chapar Revenue Circle, District – Dhubri [‘the subject-plot’, for short]. As the owner of the subject-plot, the petitioners had entered into a notarised agreement for sale of the subject-plot with a proposed purchaser viz. Asamina Khatun Mohibul Rahman on 24.06.2024. The petitioners have submitted that in order to sell the subject-plot, the petitioners made a declaration in the form of an affidavit and thereafter, had applied for Sale Permission/No Objection Certificate [NOC] from the District Commissioner, Dhubri on 29.06.2024 in the prescribed form along with all the supporting documents like trace map, chitha copy, land holding certificate, voter lists, agreement for sale of land, PAN Card, Aadhaar Card, etc. After submission of the application on 26.07.2024, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent nos. 3 had processed the application and by an order dated 13.08.2024, the respondent no. 3 had rejected the application of the petitioner for sale permission/NOC on the ground, ‘insufficient document’.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that to the knowledge of the petitioners, the petitioners had submitted all the supporting documents in support of their application for sale permission/NOC. Despite submission of all the supporting documents, the respondent no. 3 had rejected the application of the applicants by a cryptic order citing ‘insufficient document’. He has contended that as an applicant-citizen, the petitioners have the right to know the reason as to why the petitioner’s application for Sale Permission/NOC had been rejected.

5. The REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 has been amended by the Registration [Assam Amendment] Act, 2009, in its application to the State of Assam by insertion of a new Section ‘21A’ which reads as under :-

21A. No registration of non-testamentary instruments without no objection certificate.

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, no non-testamentary instrument relating to immovable property shall be accepted for registration, unless the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district issues a No Objection Certificate containing the description of such immovable property to be transferred and also such other No Objection Certificates, which are required to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner or any other Authority under any law for the time being in force or under any Executive Instruction, Order etc. issued by the State Government from time to time :

Provided that all such No Objection Certificates shall be issued within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of application and in case No Objection Certificate is not issued within the stipulated period of thirty days, a speaking order with reasons thereof shall be issued to the a