NAYUDU, C. J. : In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the question whether the appeal preferred by the petitioner Sri Bindeswar Prasad had been rightly rejected by an order dated 26-3-64 issued by the Secre­tary, Supply, Government of Assam as barred* by limitation has been raised. I (2) The facts briefly are as follows:- On 18-8-58 the petitioner applied for a licence under the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1958 for setting up a mill and running it. Not having received any reply, he again applied on 13-3-61. A period of about one year or more having elapsed for a reply to his application, in 1962 it would appear that the authorities concerned took up the matter and called for the report. Subsequently by an order of the joint Director of Supply, Govern­ment of Assam, Shillong dated 23-6-62 the app­lication was rejected and this rejection order was communicated and received by the petitioner in the first week of August 1962. On receipt of this, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 9-8-62 to the Minister in charge of Supply Depart­ment of Assam, Shillong, whereas under the Government notification No. SDB. 194/59/13 dated 13-8-59 the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Supply Department was appoin­ted as the appellate officer for the purpose of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958. While sending the appeal to the Minister in charge of Supply, who is the head of the Supply Department and a superior officer to the Secre­tary, to whom it should have been addressed, a copy was sent to the Director of Supply, Govern­ment of Assam, who at that time was also the Secretary to the Supply Department, Govern­ment of Assam. This fact has not been contro­verted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. It must, therefore, be assumed that the original of the appeal was sent to the Minister-in-charge of Supply and a true copy thereof was-sent to the Director of Supply, who was also the Secretary of the Supply Department. In other words, a copy of the appeal was in the hands of the Secretary to the Supply Department, simul­taneously more or less with the receipt of the appeal by the Minster in charge. (3) It is claimed on behalf of the Govern­ment that the appeal was addressed to the Min­ister in charge, Supply Department and not to the Secretary, Supply Department. (3) It is claimed on behalf of the Govern­ment that the appeal was addressed to the Min­ister in charge, Supply Department and not to the Secretary, Supply Department. The petitioner was asked on 14-5-63 to file a fresh appeal addressed to the proper appellate authority, namely Secretary, Supply Department. On 14-6-63 the petitioner preferred the fresh appeal, as directed, to the Secretary, Supply Depart­ment and this appeal has been rejected by the Secretary, Supply Department, Government as time barred on 26-3-64. This is briefly the sad history of this case. (4) We wish to point out that considerable lethargy has been displayed in the disposal of the applications made by the petitioner. It is surprising that an application made in the year 1958 should have taken four years for disposal and we further feel that there is no question of any limitation in this case, because the appeal, which was preferred on 9-8-62, was well within time and that appeal was addressed to the Minister of Supply, who is a superior officer to the Secretary and it was obviously the duty of the staff of the Minister to send the appeal to the Secretary, Supply Department. The Secre­tary and the Minister have opportunities to meet together and are perhaps working in the same office at Shillong. Even assuming that a technical objection could be taken in view of the fact that the appeal was not addressed to the Secretary, that objection has been met in this case by the fact that a true copy of the appeal was also addressed to the Director of Supply, who was also at the same time the Secretary to the Supply Department. We feel that there should be an anxiety on the part of the officers of the Government to dispose of the applications of the public with zeal and enthu­siasm, which is unfortunately sadly lacking in this case. Therefore, in this case the appeal that was preferred on 9-8-62 having been properly preferred and having reached the authorities in time, no question of limitation arises at all. (5) In these circumstances the order holding that the appeal is barred by limitation is quashed and it is directed that the matter be sent to the Secretary, Supply Department, Government of -Assam for a proper disposal of the appeal in accordance with law and on the merits of the case. (5) In these circumstances the order holding that the appeal is barred by limitation is quashed and it is directed that the matter be sent to the Secretary, Supply Department, Government of -Assam for a proper disposal of the appeal in accordance with law and on the merits of the case. (6) The petition is thus allowed and the rule is made absolute but there shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.