Statutory remedy under Right to Public Services Act must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.

The four petitioners claim to be landless persons whose predecessors-in-interest settled on a parcel of land in Village Sontushpur, Dhubri District, approximately fifty years ago

Each petitioner occupies land measuring between 1 Bigha and 1 Katha 5 Lessas for homestead and plantation purposes

They were previously issued Allotment Letters by the District Administration

In late 2024, the petitioners applied through the designated portal for the "Conversion of Allotment Certificate to Periodic Patta," a notified public service

Despite the expiry of the statutory 90-day period for disposal, the respondent authorities neither extended the service nor passed a speaking order

Fearing potential eviction, the petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 when the petitioners have an unexhausted statutory remedy under the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012

2. Whether the Court should direct the authorities to dispose of the pending applications for conversion of allotment certificates within a specific timeframe

Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 (as amended), specifically Section 4, which stipulates time limits for notified services, and Section 8, which provides for a two-tier appellate mechanism

Notification dated 09.07.2024 by the Revenue Disaster Management Department, which designated the "Conversion of Allotment Certificate to Periodic Patta" as a public service with a 90-day timeline for disposal

The principles of administrative law regarding the exhaustion of alternative, adequate, and statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction were centrally applied

The Court observed that the grievance—non-disposal of applications for land conversion—falls squarely within the ambit of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012.

Under the Act's framework, the Designated Public Servant (DC) had a 90-day window to process the service.

Since this period elapsed without a decision, Section 8 of the Act provides a clear statutory remedy: a First Appeal to the Director of Land Records Surveys (DLRS), Assam, followed by a Second Appeal to the Commission.

The Court reasoned that because a specific, adequate, and notified appellate procedure exists to address delays and grievances of this nature, it was inappropriate to entertain the matter directly under Article 226.

The Court acknowledged the petitioners' fear of eviction and noted that the Appellate Authority has the competence to consider interim relief.

The Court held that if an appeal is filed within 30 days, the Appellate Authority must: (i) entertain the appeal on merits; (ii) consider any prayer for interim relief regarding relocation/eviction; and (iii) pass a speaking order within the timeframe mandated by the Act. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.