The Court held that if a public authority delays the disposal of an application beyond the stipulated time, the petitioner may be granted an opportunity to file a statutory appeal even after the limitation period has expired, provided the facts of the case justify such an exception.

ORDER

Heard Mr. H. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. R. Mahanta, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

The petitioner’s case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner has executed a Sale Agreement with a buyer and applied for Composite Land Transfer vide Acknowledgement No. NOC/21/32280/2024, dated 09.02.2024. It is contended that, till the filing of the instant writ petition, the said application had not been disposed of by the respondent authorities, although the stipulated period of 45 days for such disposal had already elapsed. It is the further contended that the petitioner approached the respondent authorities and was informed that, due to differences in the religious identities of the seller and the buyer, her application has not been disposed of till that time. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

During the pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit, wherein she brought on record a digital report from Sewa Setu, a portal for submission of such applications. From the report, it transpires that the petitioner’s application was rejected by the respondent authorities on 27.06.2025, stating that, as per the report submitted by the LRA, the NOC could not be approved.

An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by respondent No. 2, i.e., the District Commissioner, Shribhumi District, Shribhumi, wherein a stand has been taken that, as per the report submitted by the LR Staff, there is a mismatch in the documents attached with NOC/21/32280/2024, to the effect that the purchaser’s name, Raju Roy, as mentioned in the affidavit, did not match with the buyer and seller and that the land revenue receipt submitted was not up to date. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies, the said NOC was rejected.

Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the stipulated time for the service to be delivered in the instant case is 45 days, however, in spite of the lapse of the aforesaid 45 days, the services as prayed for have not been delivered to the petitioner. He further submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s application for Composite Land Transfer was carried out by the respondent authorities in violation of the stipulated time and no reasons for such rejection were mentioned in the said rejection order. Therefore, he submits that such rejection, without assigning any reasons, amounts to a violation of the provisions of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2012”). Accordingly, he submits that a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the application so filed by the petitioner afresh.

On the other hand, Mr. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, submits that since the rejection has already been made by the respondent authorities, in the event of any grievance, the petitioner may seek for redressal of the same by filing an appeal under Section 8 of the Act of 2012. He submits that since the petitioner has not availed of the alternative remedy available and as there are certain discrepancies in the documents involving factual issues, the instant writ petition may not be entertained. He further submits that the matter may be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal under the aforesaid provision, i.e., Section 8 of the Act of 2012.

After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds it appropriate to extract hereinbelow the relevant provisions of the Act of 2012:

"4(3). Public Authority shall also notify an officer superior in rank than that of the Designated Public Servant to act as Appellate Authority to hear