for conversion of 2 Bighas of Annual Patta land to Periodic Patta land, out of the subject-plot. The receipt of the said application was duly acknowledged in the Sewa Setu portal vide Application Reference no. RTPS/SAPH/2023/1509236 on 29.03.2023. While issuing acknowledgement, it was further mentioned that if the application would be accepted by the Revenue & Disaster Management Department then the notified service would be provided within 300 days. It was further mentioned that if the service was not delivered within 300 days, the petitioner could prefer an appeal. The application submitted by the petitioner to avail notified service came to be rejected on 26.10.2023.

4. When the petitioner tried to obtain the status of his application in the comprehensive citizen platform, Sewa Setu, he came to learn that the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent no. 5 on 26.10.2023 and Sewa Setu showed the application’s processing history as under :-

5. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the service, ‘Conversion of land from Annual Patta [A.P.] to Periodic Patta [P.P.]’ has been declared to be a notified public service under the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 [‘the ARTPS Act’, for short] vide a Notification bearing no. RRG.77/2021/46 dated 14.03.2022. As per the said Notification, the Designated Public Servant [DPS] is the Circle Officer in rural areas for plots of lands like the subject-plots. As per the said Notification and the Citizen Charter annexed thereto as Annexure-I, the stipulated time limit for providing the service is ninety working days. Referring to the rejection order passed by the Designated Public Servant, annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, Mr. Gogoi has submitted that the impugned rejection order is a non-speaking one. Considering the fact that the rejection order passed by the Designated Public Servant under the provisions of the ARTPS Act is an appealable order, obligation is cast on the Designated Public Servant to record the reasons for rejection. Non-recording of reasons has made the rejection order an arbitrary one and the same is liable to be set aside. Due to cryptic nature of the order, the petitioner is also handicapped to prefer an appeal in an effective manner.

6. Ms. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5 has submitted, on instruction received from the respondent no. 5 i.e. the Circle Officer, Amguri Revenue Circle, that there are good grounds for rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner. Ms. Baruah has submitted that she has been provided with the reasons why the application submitted by the petitioner deserved to be rejected.

7. The learned counsel for the official respondents have further submitted that since the order of rejection is an appealable one, the petitioner instead of invoking the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction, ought to have approached the appellate authority by preferring an appeal.

8. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the petitioner. I have also gone through the provisions of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, as amended.

9. The Assam Right to Public Services [ARTPS] Act, 2012, as amended, has been enacted by the Assam Legislative Assembly in order to provide for delivery of notified public services to the people of the State of Assam within the stipulated time limit and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto and was notified by a Notification dated 02.05.2012. The ARTPS Act has been published in the Assam Gazette in its issue dated

02.05.2012.

10. As per Section 2[h], ‘Right to Public Service’ means right to obtain the notified service under the ARTPS Act from time to time within the stipulated time limit as described under Section 5. Section 5 of the ARTPS Act has laid down that every eligible person shall have the