Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010240092025 2025:GAU-AS:14821 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6201/2025 SUJIT KUMAR ROY AND ANR S/O LT ABANI MOHAN ROY RO WARD NO 6, DHUBRI TOWN, PO AND PS DHUBRI, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783301 2: MANIR UDDIN S/O HAJARAT ALI RO VILL BIRSHING PART II PO BIRSHING PS FAKRIGANJ DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 78330 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DM DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DM DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI PO AND PS AND DISTRICT DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783301 4:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER L AND R BRANCH DHUBRI ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 PO AND PS DHUBRI DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783301 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DHUBRI REVENUE CIRCLE PO AND PS DHUBRI DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M HUSSAIN, MR. Y ALI,MR. R I MONDAL,MR A.K. MOLLAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC. REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 03.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel representing the Revenue and Disaster Management Department. 2. The petitioners applied for No Objection Certificate for transfer of land on 27.05.2025. When such application was not considered within the time prescribed under Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ARTPS Act, 2012), the petitioner preferred an appeal on 31.07.2025. When such appeal was also not decided, the petitioner preferred a 2nd appeal before the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department. When such 2nd appeal has also not Page No.# 3/6 considered, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, on the other hand, submits that the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, is not the 2nd appellate authority. Under the ARTPS Act, 2012, the 2nd appellate authority is Assam State Commission for Right to Public Services. 4. The object of enactment of the ARTPS Act, 2012 as disclosed in the preamble, is to provide for delivery of notified public services to the people of the State of Assam within the stipulated time limit. In the considered opinion of this Court and the given facts of the present case, this Court is having no hesitation to hold that the noble object of the legislature in providing speedy public service to citizen is totally flouted, at the hands of such designated public authority including the appellate authorities, defeating very object of the ARTPS Act, 2012. 5. This Court is also of the opinion that the prescription of time limit for providing the designated public service to a citizen and prescription of imposition of fine, when public service is not provided beyond the prescribed time, is mandated by legislature to fix responsibility upon the designated officer and to strictly compel such designated public servant to follow the mandate and the object of the ARTPS Act, 2012 i.e. to deliver notified public services to the people of the State of Assam within the stipulated time limit. 6. It is apposite to record here that it is a bounden duty upon such Page No.# 4/6 Designated Public Servant to decide and either to give such service, if permissible under law or to refuse it and inform the reason thereof. 7. In the name of a Public Service, in this case, a person is required to run from pillar to post. He approached before the Designated Public Servant, who was kept pending beyond the stipulated period. He approached the First Appellate Authority against such a delay, which is also kept pending and not delivered within the stipulated period. When only for the reason of delay, he had to approach the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, and now, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, comes within an explanation, they cannot entertain such an application as the appeal was not addressed in the name of the appropriate authority. They could have relegated the petitioners to the proper authority instead of keeping that appeal pending and compelling the petitioners to approach before this Court. 8. It is also apposite to record here that the powers and functions of the Commission have been outlined in Sub-section (1) of Section 8D of the Act with the mandate that it shall be the duty of the Commission to ensure proper implementation of the ARTPS Act, 2012 and to make suggestions to the State Government for ensuring better delivery of services. For the said purpose, the Commission may (a) entertain and dispose of appeal under Section 8; (b) recommend Department action against any officer or employee of the State Government who has failed in due discharge of functions cast on him under this Act; (c) Page No.# 5/6 recommend charges in procedures for delivery for transparent and easier: provided that before making such a recommendation, the Commission shall consult the Authority of the concerned Administrative Department which is to deliver the services; and (d) recommend steps to be taken by Public Authority for efficient delivery of Public Services. Sub-section (2) of Section 8D has conferred power to the Commission to frame regulations, subject to the previous approval of the State Government, consistent with the provisions of the ARTPS Act, 2012 and the ARTPS Rules, 2012 for regulating its own procedure and disposal of its business with sub-section (3) thereof contains the mandate to publish such regulations in the Official Gazette. 9. Thus, the Commission is the protector of the right of the citizens under the ARTPS Act, 2012. However, it is unfortunate to record here that in the present case, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, should have been more sensitive, in the backdrop of trust and responsibility bestowed upon it by the Legislature for protection of right of citizens. 10. That being the position, even if the contention of Ms. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, is accepted that the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the 2nd Appellate Authority by filing a fresh 2nd Appeal curing the defect, this Court cannot be unmindful of clear violation of the time limit prescribed by the designated officers as well as the 1st Appellate Authority as recorded hereinabove and therefore, in any view of the matter, the aforesaid designated public servants are liable to pay Page No.# 6/6 the fine to the petitioners. 11. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that the Designated Public Servant is required to pay penalty as prescribed. The Assam State Commission for Right to Public Services, shall calculate the amount of penalty in terms of the ARTPS Act, 2012 and the Rules framed thereunder and ensure payment of the same to the petitioners. Such exercise, be carried within a period of 30 days from the date of furnishing a copy of this order before the Assam State Commission for Right to Public Services . A compliance report of this direction be forwarded to the Registrar (Judicial), Gauhati High Court. 12. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file a fresh 2nd appeal curing the defects. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant