JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. Heard Mr. M.I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 2-5. 2. The case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition, in brief, is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas, 1 Katha, 2 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 430 & Patta no. 180, situate at Village no. 1 Ghorathal, Mouza – Paschim Barkhetri, Police Station – Mukalmua, District – Nalbari, Assam [‘the subject-plot’, for short]. As the petitioner had intended to purchase another plot of land for her convenience and for the said purpose she was in need of money, the petitioner had offered to sell the subject-plot and two proposed purchasers accepted the offer. An agreement for sale of land was executed to that effect on 01.10.2023. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 23.01.2024 in the designated portal seeking the notified public service, ‘Composite Land Sale Transfer’/No Objection Certificate [NOC]. The application was received vide Acknowledgement no. NOC/06/44972/2024. Substantially, the application for NOC was shown rejected on 08.03.2024 in the designated portal, Sewa Setu. Aggrieved by such rejection of the application, the petitioner approached this Court by a writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 6329/2024 wherein it was highlighted that in view of the provisions contained in Section 21A of the Registration Act, as amended by the Registration [Assam Amendment] Act, 2009, either the NOC is to be issued or a Speaking Order is to be passed within the stipulated period. 4. The writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 6329/2024 was disposed of by an Order dated 20.12.2024. In the Order dated 20.12.2024, it was observed that since the petitioner had already filed an application before the District Commissioner, Nalbari seeking NOC and the same was duly received, it would be apposite for the District Commissioner, Nalbari to consider the claim of the petitioner and to pass a Speaking Order as required under Section 21A of the Registration Act, as amended. The writ petition was thereby, disposed of with a direction to pass the Speaking Order within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Order. 5. Thereafter, the impugned Order came to be passed by the respondent no. The writ petition was thereby, disposed of with a direction to pass the Speaking Order within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Order. 5. Thereafter, the impugned Order came to be passed by the respondent no. 2 on 11.04.2025 disposing of the matter. In the Order, it was observed that the petitioner had mistakenly claimed that her application was rejected by the Authority without any reason. The said observation was made for the reason that upon reviewing the tracking status of the application in the Sewa Setu Portal, it was found that the application was rejected by the Additional Deputy Commissioner on the basis of non-recommendation by the concerned Circle Officer for issuance of the NOC. Aggrieved by the impugned Order so passed, the petitioner is before this Court by the instant writ petition. 6. Mr. Hazarika, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 has submitted, on the basis of instructions received from the Office of the respondent no. 2 vide an Office Letter no. NLR.1-58/2025/High Court/86 dated 01.05.2026, that the application of the petitioner for NOC was rejected by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari on 23.04.2024 as the Circle Officer, Barkhetri Revenue Circle, Mukalmua did not recommend for issuance of NOC. He has further submitted that in the Land Records Assistant’s Report, it was mentioned that there was no consent of recorded tenant. 7. The impugned Order had only recorded that the petitioner had mistakenly claimed that her application was rejected by the Additional Deputy Commissioner without any reason. In the Order, the respondent no. 2 has observed that upon reviewing the tracking status of the application under Sewa Setu Portal, it was found that the application was rejected by the Additional Deputy Commissioner on the basis of non-recommendation by the concerned Circle Officer for issuance of NOC and it was on that basis, the Order dated 08.04.2025 was passed. 8. By the Order dated 20.12.2024 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 6329/2024, this Court had directed the District Commissioner, Nalbari [the respondent no. 2] to pass a Speaking Order on the application filed by the petitioner for NOC on 02.09.2024. The requirement of passing a speaking order was within the knowledge of the respondent no. 2 as the same had been reiterated in the instruction placed by Mr. 6329/2024, this Court had directed the District Commissioner, Nalbari [the respondent no. 2] to pass a Speaking Order on the application filed by the petitioner for NOC on 02.09.2024. The requirement of passing a speaking order was within the knowledge of the respondent no. 2 as the same had been reiterated in the instruction placed by Mr. Hazarika, learned Junior Government Advocate on the basis of the Office Letter dated 01.05.2026 of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari. 9. 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 applicant within the said stipulated period. 10. A Speaking Order is one which expressly states the reasons for the decision. In other words, a Speaking Order speaks for itself by assigning the reasons behind the conclusion. If an order is passed without giving a reason by the concerned authority, more particularly, when the authority is statutory authority then the order is a non-speaking one. Non-speaking order is one which does not provide a clear reason for its decision. The authority exercising the statutory power must record reasons for its decision, unless such obligation is not expressly or impliedly dispensed with. Non-speaking order is one which does not provide a clear reason for its decision. The authority exercising the statutory power must record reasons for its decision, unless such obligation is not expressly or impliedly dispensed with. It is implicit in the principles of natural justice and fair play that an authority which has been vested with the power to decide the matter should record reasons as it is part of fair procedure, more particularly, when the decision is likely to affect the person concerned. In the case in hand, the right of the applicant is also traceable to Article 300A of the Constitution. Though the right provided in Article 300A is not fundamental right, but it is still a constitutional and human right. Recording of reasons is also prima facie suggestive of conscious application of mind on the part of the authority. The obligation to record reasons is a possible check against arbitrary action on the part of the authority invested with the statutory power to take a decision which is likely to affect the right of the person concerned. When the statute itself contains a prescription to record reasons in the decision, absence of reasons in the decision falls short of prescription and would be in violation of the prescription and thus, illegal. 11. Viewed from the above standpoint, neither the Order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner nor the Order dated 11.04.2025 can be termed, by any stretch, as a Speaking Order. It seems to the idea behind the direction made in the Order dated 20.12.2024 to pass a Speaking Order only by the respondent no. 2 as he is the statutory authority vested with the authority to pass the Speaking Order under Section 21A. Both the Orders have only indicated that the application of the petitioner was rejected as the Circle Officer Barkhetri Revenue Circle, Mukalmua did not recommend for issuance of the NOC/Sale Permission. The reason why the Circle Officer did not recommend is not reflected in the Orders and there is nothing in the two Orders wherefrom it is discernible that the authorities had applied its mind to accept the non-recommendation of the Circle Officer. It cannot be denied that rejection of an application for NOC/Sale Permission from the end of a proposed seller-applicant or a proposed purchaser-applicant would likely to bring consequences to them. It cannot be denied that rejection of an application for NOC/Sale Permission from the end of a proposed seller-applicant or a proposed purchaser-applicant would likely to bring consequences to them. An applicant whose application for NOC/Sale Permission gets rejected, that too, without recording any reason, at least has the right to know the grounds on which his/her application has been rejected so that he/she can submit a fresh application with all the supporting documents and requisite details/information to meet the deficiencies which occurred at the time of the previous application. 12. It is a settled proposition that public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them and persons to whose detriment orders are made, are entitled to know with exactness and precision what they are expected to do or forebear from doing. 13. Consequently, the Order dated 11.04.2025 as well as the Order dated 23.04.2024 are found to be non-speaking orders as it only mentions that the application of the petitioner was rejected without citing any specific reason, which is evidently not in conformity with the statutory prescription contained in Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908. Thereafter, the Order dated 11.04.2025 is set aside and quashed. 14. In the above obtaining facts and circumstances, the respondent no. 2 is directed to pass a Speaking Order with reasons in conformity with the prescription contained in Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, on the application of the petitioner dated 23.01.2024 within a period of one month from the date of submission of a certified copy of this Order at the office of the respondent no. 2 by the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated. No cost. 15. A copy of this order is also to be furnished to Mr. Hazarika, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam so as to facilitate its communication to the respondent no. 2 forthwith. The copy of the Office Letter dated 01.05.2026, placed by Mr. Hazarika, is kept with the case record by marking it as Document - ‘A’.