JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. - Heard Shri AK Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri G Pegu, learned State Counsel, Assam. Also heard Shri BJ Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that a Deed of Agreement to Sale dated 23.12.2017 (for short Agreement) was entered into between the original petitioner (Om Prakash Rathi) and respondent no. 5-vendor in respect of a property described as Room No.T-17, 3rd Floor in the Parmeshwari Building, Chatribari, Guwahati (for short Building). As per the Agreement, the consideration amount was fixed at Rs.8,09,600/- and the said amount was paid in full by the original petitioner on 14.02.2018 and on the same date, the possession was handed over. Since then, the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the same. As a consequential action of the Agreement, the owner-respondent no. 5 had duly applied for Sale Permission in respect of the property mentioned above. However, it appears that the respondent no. 4 had lodged an Objection dated 30.07.2018 which, however, pertains to Room No. G-14 in the ground floor of the Building. Thereafter, though the matter was pursued by the petitioner, nothing was done by the authorities to grant the Sale Permission and get the sale registered. 3. Shri Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no legal impediment whatsoever for consideration of the application for grant of Sale Permission submitted by the respondent no. 5-vendor. It is submitted that on enquiry, an Objection dated 30.07.2018 has been found to be submitted by the respondent no. 4 stating that he is a tenant of Room No. G-14 and, accordingly, claims preferential right in case of such sale. By drawing the attention of this Court to the said Objection dated 30.07.2018, the learned counsel submits that there is not even a remote reference to the subject of sale between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 and, therefore, the said Objection dated 30.07.2018 could not have played any role in denying grant of Sale Permission. Apart from the said Objection, there is nothing on record which could have prevented the authorities from considering the application for grant of Sale Permission. 5 and, therefore, the said Objection dated 30.07.2018 could not have played any role in denying grant of Sale Permission. Apart from the said Objection, there is nothing on record which could have prevented the authorities from considering the application for grant of Sale Permission. The learned counsel for the petitioner goes a step further in contending that even assuming but not admitting that an objection is made in respect of a property which is the subject matter of a sale, such objection has to be supported by an order passed by a competent court in the nature of an injunction or stay and in absence of such order, an objection by itself cannot be a reason to deny such permission. It is a different matter that if the authorities wishes to give a hearing to the parties, but the mere fact that submitting an objection cannot stand on the way of considering an application for grant of Sale Permission. 4. Shri G Pegu, learned State Counsel fairly submits that as per instructions received by him, the objector (respondent no. 4) has referred to a Title Suit instituted by him, being TS No.255/2019 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup. He, however, fairly submits that apart from the fact of filing a civil suit, there is no reference to any order of injunction passed by the competent court and apparently, the suit could not have been in respect of the present subject property. 5. Shri Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that an application for sale of immovable property has to be considered on its own merits and if the eligibility criteria are met, the authorities are duty bound to make such consideration and pass a consequential order. He further submits that the Objection dated 30.07.2018 is not a relevant factor while considering the present application for sale of the property in question as the Objection dated 30.07.2018 is not at all connected with the subject property. 6. Though the objector (respondent no. 4) was served and was initially represented by Shri B Deka, learned counsel, today Shri Deka is not present when the matter is called upon. 7. On the other hand, Shri Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on an earlier occasion, Shri Deka, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. Though the objector (respondent no. 4) was served and was initially represented by Shri B Deka, learned counsel, today Shri Deka is not present when the matter is called upon. 7. On the other hand, Shri Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on an earlier occasion, Shri Deka, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 (objection) had made his position clear that his objection is not pertaining to the subject property of the present writ petition. 8. The submissions by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have also been carefully examined. 9. In this case, it appears that the only reason for the inaction to consider the application for grant of Sale Permission is an Objection dated 30.07.2018. A perusal of the said objection filed by the respondent no. 4, who is one of the tenants is in respect of another property and the subject matter of the said objection cannot be a reason not to consider the application filed for permission to sell the property. This Court also finds force in the contention advanced by Shri Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner that even assuming but not admitting that the subject matter of the objection is connected to the present petition for grant of Sale Permission, in absence of any order from the competent court in the nature of an injunction or stay, there is no legal bar for the authorities to consider such application. However, in the instant case, even that assumption cannot be drawn as the subject matter of the objection is not even remotely connected with the subject matter of the Permission for Sale, except for the fact that both the rooms are in the same building. As the rooms are being demarcated and the identity thereof not being a matter of dispute, the authorities would be unreasonable to take up the plea of pendency of the objection or the civil suit, the subject matter of which is also not connected with the present subject of transfer of a property, for not considering the application for grant of Sale Permission. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed by directing the respondent authorities, more specifically, respondent nos. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed by directing the respondent authorities, more specifically, respondent nos. 2 and 3 to duly consider the application for grant of Sale Permission submitted by the respondent no. 5 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. Since the scope of filing an objection in the present case has already been decided and held to be irrelevant by this Court, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are not required to give further scope or opportunity to the respondent no. 4 (objector) at the time of consideration of the application for grant of Sale Permission. 12. With the above observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.