Rejection of a notified public service must be reasoned and based on independent application of mind.

The petitioner claimed ownership of 5 Bighas 6 Lessas of land covered by Dag No. 597 and Patta No. 2 at Udmari Part-IV, Bilasipara Revenue Circle, Dhubri.

Owing to heart-related medical treatment and the need for funds, he proposed to sell 2 Bighas of the land and applied through the “Sewa Setu” portal on 3 February 2026 for the notified public service of “Composite Land Sale Transfer.”

The application was acknowledged under No. NOC/02/58660/2026, with a stipulated processing period of 45 days.

When the application was not processed, the petitioner filed an earlier writ petition seeking consideration of his application.

During its pendency, he learned that the Circle Officer had rejected the application on 17 March 2026.

The portal cited the following reasons: “Land under dispute,” non-submission of geotagged photographs, and a possession dispute as per the Land Records Assistant’s report.

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application for “Composite Land Sale Transfer” was invalid for failure to record adequate reasons in writing as required under Section 7(2) of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012?

2. Whether the rejection was vitiated because the Circle Officer acted on a cryptic Land Records Assistant’s report without independently examining the alleged land or possession dispute?

3. What consequential directions should be issued after setting aside the rejection order?

The Court applied the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012. Sections 5 and 6 confer an eligible person’s right to obtain a notified public service within the prescribed period and impose a corresponding duty on the Designated Public Servant to deliver the service.

Under Section 7(2), the Designated Public Servant must either provide the service or reject the application within the stipulated time; in the event of rejection, the authority must record reasons in writing and communicate the reasons, the limitation period for appeal, and the particulars of the Appellate Authority.

The Court also applied the Notification dated 11 November 2022, under which “Composite Land Sale Transfer” is a notified service, the Deputy Commissioner or nominee is the Designated Public Servant, and the stipulated period is 45 days.

The Court further relied on the principles of natural justice, fair procedure, independent application of mind, and the duty of statutory authorities to pass reasoned orders.

It observed that recording reasons is particularly significant where the decision is appealable and affects rights traceable to Article 300A of the Constitution.

The Court held that the portal-generated rejection—citing “land under dispute,” non-submission of geotagged photographs, and a possession dispute—was cryptic and did not disclose the particulars of the alleged dispute, the portion of land affected, or the evidentiary basis for rejection.

Since Section 7(2) expressly required reasons to be recorded and communicated, the absence of a clear and reasoned decision rendered the rejection legally defective.

The Court also found that the Circle Officer appeared to have rejected the application on the basis of the Land Records Assistant’s report, without demonstrating independent consideration of the alleged dispute or possession issue.

A statutory authority cannot mechanically act at the suggestion of a person or subordinate report without independent application of mind.

Accordingly, the rejection order failed both the statutory requirement of a reasoned order and the requirement of independent decision-making.

The Designated Public Servant was directed to reconsider and process the petitioner’s application for “Composite Land Sale Transfer” strictly in accordance with the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 and the Notification dated 11 November 2022, and to bring the matter to finality within 30 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

If any further document or deficiency was found necessary, the petitioner was to be informed in writing within 15 days, with the 30-day period running from the date on which the deficiency was cured.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.