Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010058842025 2025:GAU-AS:4578 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1732/2025 SUBALA MALAKAR AND 4 ORS. W/O LATE RAMAKANTA MALAKAR, R/O VILL- SUPRAKANDI, FAKIRER BAJAR, P.S.- KARIMGANJ, DIST- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM 2: RINKU MALAKAR S/O LATE RAMAKANTA MALAKAR R/O VILL- SUPRAKANDI FAKIRER BAJAR P.S.- KARIMGANJ DIST- SRIBHUMI ASSAM 3: PINKU MALAKAR S/O LATE RAMAKANTA MALAKAR R/O VILL- SUPRAKANDI FAKIRER BAJAR P.S.- KARIMGANJ DIST- SRIBHUMI ASSAM 4: SEBIKA MALAKAR D/O LATE RAMAKANTA MALAKAR R/O VILL- SUPRAKANDI FAKIRER BAJAR P.S.- KARIMGANJ DIST- SRIBHUMI ASSAM 5: BELI MALAKAR D/O LATE RAMAKANTA MALAKAR R/O VILL- SUPRAKANDI FAKIRER BAJAR P.S.- KARIMGANJ DIST- SRIBHUMI Page No.# 2/6 ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SRIBHUMI DIST- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788710 3:THEE DISTRICT REGISTRAR SRIBHUMI P.O. P.S. AND DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SRIBHUMI REVENUE CIRCLE P.O.- MANIKGANJ P.S. AND DIST- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788712 5:THE SUB-REGISTRAR SRIBHUMI P.O. AND P.S.- KARIMGANJ DIST- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-78871 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, S. TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 10.04.2025 Page No.# 3/6 1. Heard Mr. H. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court stating that they have applied for No Objection Certificate (NOC) for sale permission on 12.12.2024 along with all the requisite documents. But despite submission of the application for composite land sale transfer along with all the requisite documents, the respondent No. 4 has denied to extend the service on the ground that the matter involves inter- religion transfer. 3. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit bringing on record the status of application filed. A track application status is also annexed with the affidavit which goes to show that the application was registered under Reference No. NOC/21/40354/2024 and said application was submitted on 12.12.2024 and in terms of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, the stipulated delivery date was 26.01.2025 and the track report shows that it is under process. 4. The State Legislature has enacted an act, ‘the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 [Assam Act no. IX of 2012]’ the Preamble of which states that it is an Act to provide for the delivery of the notified public services to the people of the State of Assam within the stipulated time limit and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The State Legislature has made certain amendments in the provisions of ‘the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012’ by ‘the Assam Right to Public Services [Amendment] Act, 2019 [Assam Act no. VII of 2019]’ [‘the ARTPS (Amendment) Act’, for short]. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the ARTPS Act, the State Government has also made a set of rules viz. the Assam Right to Public Services Rules, 2012 [‘the ARTPS Rules’, for short]. Page No.# 4/6 5. The State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4 of the ARTPS Act has declared that the ARTPS Act has come into effect to the whole State except in the districts of Kokrajhar, Chirang, Baksa, Udalguri, Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao. 6. As per Section 2[h], ‘Right to Public Service’ means the right to obtain the notified service under the ARTPS Act from time to time within the stipulated time limit as prescribed under Section 5. ‘Notified service’, as per Section 2[i], means any service notified by the State Government under Section-4. Section 2[k] has provided for the ‘stipulated time limit’ which means the maximum time to provide the service the service by the Designated Public Servant or to decide the appeals by the appellate authorities as notified under Section 4. 7. The Designated Public Servant on receipt of an application to provide a notified service shall either provide the notified service or reject the application and in case of rejection of an application, he shall have to record the reasons in writing and communicate to the person making the application [i] the reasons for such rejection; [ii] the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and [iii] the particulars of the Appellate Authority. 8. Section 8 has made provisions for appeal as well as for second appeal before an Appellate Authority and the Assam State Commission for Right to Public Services [‘the Commission’, for short] respectively, within the time limits provided therefor. 9. By a notification no. AR.39/2017/149 dated 04.03.2020 of the Administrative Reforms and Training Department, Government of Assam, it has been notified that the Assam Administrative Tribunal shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Assam State Commission for Right to Public Services until further order and the said notification has come into force with immediate effect. Page No.# 5/6 10. Section 14 of the ARTPS Act has given overriding effect to the Act. As per the said Section, in relation to the notified services under the ARTPS Act and its implementation, the provisions of the ARTPS Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the said Act. 11. The State Government has, in the meantime, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of the ARTPS Act, notified and brought a number of services under the purview of the ARTPS Act by a notification no. AR.69/2011/Pt- II/96 dated 10.04.2013. Amongst the services so notified and brought under the purview of the ARTPS Act includes ‘demarcation’. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, reported in [1998] 8 SCC 1, has further observed as under :- “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose”. 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a direction to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the Page No.# 6/6 enforcement of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.” 13. In the light of the above discussion as regards exercise of the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court on analysis of the provisions of the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner, is of the considered view that such remedy is an efficacious and adequate one. From the aforesaid discussions, it is also clear that the petitioner is having efficacious remedy under Sections 9(2)(a) and Section 8(3)(4) of the ARTPS Act. The petitioner is also having efficacious remedy against such alleged delay inasmuch as the appellate authority can even impose penalty, if the public service is not provided within the time stipulated within the Act. 14. In such view of the matter, this Court finds that this writ petition is not to be entertained as it is open to the petitioner to have recourse to the remedy under the ARTPS Act. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this writ petition and to approach the appropriate forum i.e. the appellate forum and the petitioner shall also be at liberty to claim for compensation i.e. required to be given to the claimant for every days delay i.e. with effect from 26.01.2025 till a decision is taken on the application No. NOC/21/40354/2024. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition stands closed on withdrawal. JUDGE Comparing Assistant