ORDER : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. S. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. 2. In view of the limited nature of issue involved and as the learned counsel for the respondents have received the necessary instructions, this writ petition is taken up for consideration at the motion stage itself, as agreed to by the learned counsel for all the parties. 3. The two petitioners were the wife and the daughter respectively of one Late Nagendra Nath. The case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition, in brief, is that he is the owner of a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 10 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 244 & Khiraj Myadi Patta no. 176, Class – Bari, situate at Village – Kurshakati, Mouza – Chapar, Chapar Revenue Circle, District – Dhubri [‘the subject-plot’, for short]. As the owner of the subject-plot, the petitioners had entered into a notarised agreement for sale of the subject-plot with a proposed purchaser viz. Asamina Khatun Mohibul Rahman on 24.06.2024. The petitioners have submitted that in order to sell the subject-plot, the petitioners made a declaration in the form of an affidavit and thereafter, had applied for Sale Permission/No Objection Certificate [NOC] from the District Commissioner, Dhubri on 29.06.2024 in the prescribed form along with all the supporting documents like trace map, chitha copy, land holding certificate, voter lists, agreement for sale of land, PAN Card, Aadhaar Card, etc. After submission of the application on 26.07.2024, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent nos. 3 had processed the application and by an order dated 13.08.2024, the respondent no. 3 had rejected the application of the petitioner for sale permission/NOC on the ground, ‘insufficient document’. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that to the knowledge of the petitioners, the petitioners had submitted all the supporting documents in support of their application for sale permission/NOC. Despite submission of all the supporting documents, the respondent no. 3 had rejected the application of the applicants by a cryptic order citing ‘insufficient document’. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that to the knowledge of the petitioners, the petitioners had submitted all the supporting documents in support of their application for sale permission/NOC. Despite submission of all the supporting documents, the respondent no. 3 had rejected the application of the applicants by a cryptic order citing ‘insufficient document’. He has contended that as an applicant-citizen, the petitioners have the right to know the reason as to why the petitioner’s application for Sale Permission/NOC had been rejected. 5. The Registration Act, 1908 has been amended by the Registration [Assam Amendment] Act, 2009, in its application to the State of Assam by insertion of a new Section ‘21A’ which reads as under :- 21A. No registration of non-testamentary instruments without no objection certificate. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, no non-testamentary instrument relating to immovable property shall be accepted for registration, unless the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district issues a No Objection Certificate containing the description of such immovable property to be transferred and also such other No Objection Certificates, which are required to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner or any other Authority under any law for the time being in force or under any Executive Instruction, Order etc. issued by the State Government from time to time : Provided that all such No Objection Certificates shall be issued within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of application and in case No Objection Certificate is not issued within the stipulated period of thirty days, a speaking order with reasons thereof shall be issued to the applicant within the said stipulated period. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to a Notification bearing no. E-457453 of the Revenue [Registration] & Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam dated 07.03.2024, has submitted that the said Notification had currency for a period of three months and after expiry of three months from 07.03.2024, the period mentioned in the said Notification has not been extended. 7. E-457453 of the Revenue [Registration] & Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam dated 07.03.2024, has submitted that the said Notification had currency for a period of three months and after expiry of three months from 07.03.2024, the period mentioned in the said Notification has not been extended. 7. On perusal of the Notification dated 07.03.2024, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it is noticed that by the said Notification, the State Government had directed that all cases for grant of No Objection Certificate [NOC] for sale of land under Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908 where buyer and seller belong to different religions, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months from the date of issuance of the Notification. It was further mentioned in the Notification that if District Commissioner would be of the view that grant of such NOC was absolutely necessary for attending circumstances and would not lead to any breach of law and order, the same could be issued with prior concurrence of Inspector General of Registration, Assam. 8. The learned counsel for the official respondents, on the basis of the instructions received, have submitted that after expiry of three months from 07.03.2024, the tenure has not been extended by any subsequent notification and there is also no subsequent notification like the Notification dated 07.03.2024 as on date, and the matter is still at an advanced stage of consideration before the State Government. 9. The impugned order dated 13.08.2024, passed by the respondent no. 3, has only indicated that the application of the petitioners was rejected due to ‘insufficient document’. It cannot be denied that rejection of an application for Sale Permission/NOC from the end of a proposed seller- applicant would likely to entail consequences to him/her. Thus, the applicant whose application for Sale Permission/NOC gets rejected, at least has the right to know the ground[s] on which his/her application has been rejected so that he/she submit a fresh application with all the supporting documents and requisite details/information, meeting the deficiencies, which occurred at the time of the previous application. 10. Thus, the applicant whose application for Sale Permission/NOC gets rejected, at least has the right to know the ground[s] on which his/her application has been rejected so that he/she submit a fresh application with all the supporting documents and requisite details/information, meeting the deficiencies, which occurred at the time of the previous application. 10. It is a settled proposition that public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them and persons to whose detriment orders are made, are entitled to know with exactness and precision what they are expected to do or forebear from doing and exactly what authority is making the order. If an order has been passed without giving a reason by the concerned authority, then the order is a non-speaking order. A non-speaking order is one that does not provide a clear reason for its decision. A speaking order is one which expressly states the reasons for the decision. In other words, a speaking order speaks for itself by assigning the reasons behind the conclusion. 11. The order of rejection dated 13.08.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 is found to be a cryptic and non-speaking one as it only mentions that the application of the petitioners was rejected due to ‘insufficient document’ which is evidently not in conformity with the statutory prescription contained in Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended. 12. In the above obtaining fact situation and considering the stage of consideration of the writ petition, the respondent no. 3 is directed to furnish the list of documents which, according to him, were not submitted by the petitioners with their application dated 29.06.2024 within a period of 7 [seven] working days from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order at the office of the respondent no. 3. 13. This order disposes of the writ petition. 14. A copy of this order is to be furnished to Mr. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam so as to communicate it to the respondent no. 3 forthwith.