GUWAHATI, India, Oct. 23 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Sept. 23:

1. Heard Mr. MU Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. G Hazarika, learned Standing counsel for the Revenue & Disaster Management Department, representing the respondent No. 1 and Mr. SS Roy, learned Government Advocate, Assam representing the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by non-delivery of a Public Service (Demarcation of Land) within the stipulated period under the Assam Right To Public Services Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ARTPS Act, 2012). Petitioners' father, Samir Prasad Chakrabarty, applied for demarcation of a plot of land. The same has not been carried out by the respondent No. 4 i.e. the Circle Officer, Bilasipara, though, several dates have been fixed for completion of the demarcation process.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the father of the petitioners required financial assistance for medical treatment. Therefore, after demarcation, they would be able to sell the aforesaid land.

4. The petitioners earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 1129/2025.

5. This Court, after analysis of the provisions of the alternative statutory remedy available under the ARTPS Act, 2012, more particularly, under Section 9(2)(a) and Section 8(3)(4) of the ARTPS Act, 2012 and taking note that an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal against alleged delay is available, relegated the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.

6. Now, the present application is filed alleging that the petitioners thereafter, have approached the First Appellate Authority, and when the First Appellate Authority also did not decide the application of the petitioners, the petitioners preferred a second appeal under Section 8(4) of the ARTPS Act, 2012, however, none of the aforesaid applications have been decided till date.

7. On instruction, Mr. S. S. Roy, learned Government Advocate, Assam, submits that there are some disputes and therefore, the demarcation could not be carried out.

8. This Court, at this stage, is not concerned with whether the demarcation can be carried out or not, but whether the mandate of law to decide and deliver public service within a stipulated period, as provided under the ARTPS Act, 2012 is followed.

9. Before dealing with the contentions made by the learned counsels for the parties, let this Court deal with the provisions of the ARTPS Act, 2012.

10. Though this Court could have closed this writ petition based on the submission of the learned Advocate for the respondent that, if 2nd appeal is filed afresh by curing the defect, however, this Court while taking up similar matters, in recent past has observed that there are numbers of writ petitions filed before this Court with a grievance of nongrant of notified service within stipulated time as provided under the ARTPS Act, 2012.

11. Therefore, it is essential to decide, in this case, more particularly, the effect of keeping the public service pending, by the Designated Public Servant. Therefore, this Court would first like to deal with the object of the ARTPS Act, 2012 and the corresponding duty entrusted upon a Designated Public Servant towards providing notified services to a citizen.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x%2BtZg2UnSO57SHU%2Ffh%2BbgUODqPNaQg7V4Y9Eg0Py%2BetQ&caseno=WP(C)/4025/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010155242025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.