Rejection of a notified public service must state specific reasons under the ARTPS Act.

Petitioners 1–4, stated to be joint owners of a plot in Goalpara, agreed to sell it to petitioner 5 and applied online for the notified public service “Composite Land Sale Transfer” on 17 February 2026.

The Circle Officer rejected the application on 25 May 2026, stating that documents were insufficient and had not been submitted despite follow-up, but did not identify the missing documents.

The petitioners challenged the rejection under Article 226, contending that it was non-speaking and contrary to the statutory requirements to give reasons.

The State respondents argued that the petitioners should have pursued the statutory appeal.

Whether the rejection of the application, without specifying the documents said to be missing or otherwise providing adequate reasons, complied with the applicable statutory requirements

Whether the availability of a statutory appeal precluded the Court from exercising writ jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case

Section 7(2) of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 requires the Designated Public Servant, when rejecting an application for a notified service, to record reasons in writing and communicate the reasons, appeal period, and appellate authority to the applicant.

Section 8 provides an appeal against rejection or non-delivery of a notified service within the stipulated period.

Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended in Assam, requires relevant No Objection Certificates to be issued within 30 days and, if not issued, a reasoned speaking order within that period.

The Notification dated 11 November 2022 designates the Deputy Commissioner or nominee as the Designated Public Servant for “Composite Land Sale Transfer” and prescribes a 45-day service period.

A statutory authority must give reasons where required by statute and principles of natural justice; an available alternative remedy does not bar a writ petition in recognised circumstances, including failure of natural justice.

Under Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons stated in it and cannot be sustained by later-supplied reasons.

The Court found that the rejection merely cited “insufficient documents” without identifying what was missing, leaving the petitioners unable to address the alleged deficiency or make an effective appeal.

The order therefore failed to meet the statutory requirement of a reasoned rejection under Section 7(2) and the applicable requirements concerning a speaking order.

Because the defect implicated statutory compliance and natural justice, the Court held that it outweighed the respondents’ objection that the petitioners should first have appealed.

The order could not be repaired by explanations offered later.

It allowed the writ petition to that extent, set aside the order dated 25 May 2026, and directed the Designated Public Servant to reconsider the application in accordance with Section 7(2) of the ARTPS Act, Section 21A of the Registration Act, and the 11 November 2022 Notification, and to pass a speaking, reasoned order within 45 days of the petitioners submitting a copy of the judgment.

No order as to costs was made.