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

The petitioners, Yakub Ali and Jamser Ali, claim to be in continuous occupation of 6 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lessas of land in Dhubri District, Assam, based on an allotment order issued on April 16, 1976

On October 24, 2024, they submitted an application through the "Sewa Setu" portal seeking the conversion of their Allotment Certificate (AC) to a Periodic Patta (PP), a service notified under the Right to Public Services Act

Despite the statutory 90-day timeline for processing such applications, the portal showed the matter as "pending" beyond the deadline

Fearing eviction, the petitioners approached the Gauhati High Court seeking a writ to compel the authorities to process their application

1. Whether the petitioners have an alternative, adequate, and statutory remedy available to address the non-disposal of their application within the stipulated timeframe under the Right to Public Services Act

2. Whether the Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 when a specific appellate mechanism is provided by statute

Section 8 of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, which mandates that any person failing to receive a notified service within the stipulated time may prefer an appeal to the designated 1st Appellate Authority

Revenue & Disaster Management Department Notification dated July 9, 2024, which classified the "Conversion of Allotment Certificate to Periodic Patta" as a public service with a 90-day processing timeline and identified the Director of Land Records & Surveys, Assam, as the 1st Appellate Authority

The court observed that the petitioners' grievance—delayed processing of a land conversion application—falls squarely within the ambit of the Assam Right to Public Services Act

Under Section 8 of said Act, a statutory remedy exists whereby an applicant can appeal to the 1st Appellate Authority (Director of Land Records & Surveys) if the service is not provided within the 90-day limit

the Court reasoned that because this statutory remedy is "alternative, adequate, and statutory," the petitioners must exhaust it before seeking relief through a writ petition

The Court further noted that the Appellate Authority has the power to order the Designated Public Servant to provide the service and can record reasons for any rejection in a speaking order

It directed the petitioners to file an appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority (Director of Land Records & Surveys, Assam) within thirty days

The 1st Appellate Authority was ordered to consider the appeal on its merits and specifically address the petitioners' prayer for interim relief against potential eviction

The petition was disposed of with the direction that the appeal be resolved via a speaking order within the prescribed statutory timeframe