JUDGMENT AND ORDER : ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. I Haque, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. PN Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General of Assam and Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondent authorities in not considering the petitioner’s application under Acknowledgement No. NOC/24/37159/2022 dated 17.12.2022 for issuance of NOC for transfer of immovable property, causing inordinate delay. 3. The petitioner No. 1 is the father of the petitioner No. 2, who is an absolute sole owner of two plots of land under Dag No. 64 of Patta No. 57 and Dag No. 69 of Patta No. 58 respectively situated at village Bherakuchi under Mouza Dimoria, PS Khetri in the district of Kamrup (M), Assam. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 is intending to transfer a plot of land measuring 9 Bighas 2 Kathas 17.90 Lechas to the petitioner No. 2 by way of executing a gift deed and as such the application for NOC to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) through online mode (acknowledgement No. NOC/24/37159/2022) was filed inasmuch as the stipulated period of 30 days for obtaining such NOC had already expired. It is also the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 2 had approached the Lot Mandal as well as the Circle Officer several times, but failed to obtain the NOC. Accordingly, the petitioners have approached this court for a direction to the respondent authorities to issue the NOC along with to impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- as per Section 9(1) of the Assam Right to Public Service Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ARTPS Act, 2012). 4. Accordingly, the petitioners have approached this court for a direction to the respondent authorities to issue the NOC along with to impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- as per Section 9(1) of the Assam Right to Public Service Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ARTPS Act, 2012). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after expiry of the stipulated period of time, an appeal ought to have filed through RTPS Portal in appeal section, but the petitioner was unable to file an appeal before the appellate authority as in the appeal section of the RTPS Online Portal, the name of office ‘location’ i.e. the D.C. Office of the Kamrup (M) as well as the Sonapur Revenue Circle Officer were not available in the “LOCATION” column and therefore, they were not in a position to file a first appeal against non delivery of the service within stipulated timeline and having no alternative, have approached this court. 5. The respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit affirming the stand that the Kamrup (M) District was not available at that time in the ‘LOCATION’ column in the Appeal Section of the Online RTPS Portal for the service mentioned by the petitioner as the official mapping for the said office was under process. The mapping is to be made in collaboration with the concerned DC Office and the clarification from ARIAS Society, Khanapara (implementing agency) in this regard. However, currently Kamrup (M) district is available for that particular service under ‘LOCATION’ column in Appeal Section of online RTPS Portal. 6. It is not in dispute that the application for grant of NOC was not disposed of within the period prescribed under the Act, 2012. It is interesting to note that when notice of motion was issued by this court on 26.04.2023, thereafter only the application for NOC was rejected on 05.12.2023 beyond the prescribed period of time, which shall be dealt in the later part of this judgment. It is also recorded at the very outset that Mr. It is interesting to note that when notice of motion was issued by this court on 26.04.2023, thereafter only the application for NOC was rejected on 05.12.2023 beyond the prescribed period of time, which shall be dealt in the later part of this judgment. It is also recorded at the very outset that Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General in his usual fairness submits that the conduct of the respondent officials are not in conformity with the scheme and object of the Act, 2012 and he has instruction to make a submission that if the petitioners file a fresh application, the petitioners’ application shall be duly considered in strict conformity with the Act, 2012 and the Rules framed thereunder. 7. Before dealing with the contentions made by the learned counsels for the parties, let us deals with the provisions of the Act, 2012. Though this court could have closed this writ petition on the basis of the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General, 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 non-grant of notified service within stipulated time as provided under the Act, 2012. Therefore, it is important to make a determination 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 Act, 2012 and the corresponding duty entrusted upon a designated public servant towards providing notified services to a citizen. 8. The State Legislature enacted the Act, 2012, the Preamble of which states that it is an Act to provide for the delivery of the notified public services to the people of the State of Assam within the stipulated time limit and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the ARTPS Act, the State Government has also made a set of rules viz. the Assam Right to Public Services Rules, 2012 (‘the ARTPS Rules’, for short). 9. The ARTPS Act is extendable to the whole of Assam, except in the districts of Kokrajhar, Chirang, Baksa, Udalguri, Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao. 10. The term, ‘eligible person’, defined in Section 2(d), means a citizen who is eligible for obtaining the notified service. the Assam Right to Public Services Rules, 2012 (‘the ARTPS Rules’, for short). 9. The ARTPS Act is extendable to the whole of Assam, except in the districts of Kokrajhar, Chirang, Baksa, Udalguri, Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao. 10. The term, ‘eligible person’, defined in Section 2(d), means a citizen who is eligible for obtaining the notified service. As per Section 2(h), ‘Right to Public Service’ means the right to obtain the notified service under the ARTPS Act from time to time within the stipulated time limit as prescribed under Section 5. ‘Notified service’, as per Section 2(i), means any service notified by the State Government under Section-4. Section 2(k) has provided for the ‘stipulated time limit’ which means the maximum time to provide the service by the Designated Public Servant or to decide the appeals by the appellate authorities as notified under Section 4. 11. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4, the State Government may, from time to time, notify, inter-alia, the public services including the provisions for fast track service delivery (“Tatkal Sewa”), the appointment of Designated Public Servants in the administrative units/offices under it, Appellate Authorities to hear and decide the appeal by an eligible person against rejection of his application or delay in providing notified public services within the stipulated time limit, etc. Under Section 5, every eligible person has the right to obtain the services in accordance with the ARTPS Act within the time period as notified under Section 4. The responsibility has been cast on the Designated Public Servant, under Section 6, to provide the notified services under Section 4 to the eligible person within the stipulated time limit, which starts, as per Section 7, from the date when the application for obtaining a required notified service is submitted to the Designated Public Servant or to a person, subordinate to him, authorized to receive the application. It has been made mandatory under Rule 3 of the ARTPS Rules to issue acknowledgment to the citizens applying for notified services. The State Government by a notification no. AR.32/2020/PT-I/28 dated 10.06.2021 has further made it mandatory to issue acknowledgement against each such application for notified service in order to track the delivery of notified services and to see as to whether the notified services have been delivered within the stipulated time period. 12. The State Government by a notification no. AR.32/2020/PT-I/28 dated 10.06.2021 has further made it mandatory to issue acknowledgement against each such application for notified service in order to track the delivery of notified services and to see as to whether the notified services have been delivered within the stipulated time period. 12. The Designated Public Servant on receipt of an application to provide a notified service shall either provide the notified service or reject the application and in case of rejection of an application, he shall have to record the reasons in writing and communicate to the person making the application (i) the reasons for such rejection; (ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and (iii) the particulars of the Appellate Authority. 13. Section 8 has made provisions for appeal as well as for second appeal before an Appellate Authority and the Assam State Commission for Right to Public Services (‘the Commission’, for short) respectively, within the time limits provided therefor. Under Section 8A, the State Government is required to constitute a body to be known as the Assam State Commission for Right to Public Services, by notification in the Official Gazette, to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned to it under the Act. The powers and functions of the Commission have been outlined in sub-section (1) of Section 8D of the Act with the mandate that it shall be the duty of the Commission to ensure proper implementation of the Act and to make suggestions to the State Government for ensuring better delivery of services. For the said purpose, the Commission may (a) entertain and dispose of appeal under Section 8; (b) recommend Department action against any officer or employee of the State Government who has failed in due discharge of functions cast on him under this Act; (c) recommend charges in procedures for delivery for transparent and easier: provided that before making such a recommendation, the Commission shall consult the Authority of the concerned Administrative Department which is to deliver the services; and (d) recommend steps to be taken by Public Authority for efficient delivery of Public Services. Sub-section (2) of Section 8D has conferred power to the Commission to frame regulations, subject to the previous approval of the State Government, consistent with the provisions of the ARTPS Act, 2012 and the ARTPS Rules, 2012 for regulating its own procedure and disposal of its business with sub-section (3) thereof contains the mandate to publish such regulations in the Official Gazette. 14. By a notification no. AR.39/2017/149 dated 04.03.2020 of the Administrative Reforms and Training Department, Government of Assam, it has been notified that the Assam Administrative Tribunal shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Assam State Commission for Right to Public Services until further order and the said notification has come into force with immediate effect. 15. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 8D of the ARTPS Act, 2012 has also made a set of regulations by the name of ‘the Assam State Commission for Right to Public Services Regulations, 2021 (‘the ARTPS Regulations’, for short) for regulating the procedure and disposal of business of the Commission and the ARTPS Regulations have been notified by the State Government vide a notification no. AR.21/2021/31 dated 12.11.2021. 16. Section 9 has prescribed for penalty at the rate specified from time to time as prescribed in the rules framed under the Act, 2012 if the Designated Public Servant has refused to receive an application for notified services or has failed to provide the notified public services within the stipulated time as fixed under the Act, 2012 or malafidely denied the request for notified services or obstructed in any manner in providing the notified services without sufficient and reasonable cause. Provision is also made therein for imposition of penalty up to a maximum of Rs. 25,000/-. Section 10 has laid down the procedure for recovery of penalty, making provision for recovery of penalty from the salary of the concerned Designated Public Servant. 17. Section 14 of the ARTPS Act, 2012 has given overriding effect to the Act. As per the said Section, in relation to the notified services under the ARTPS Act, 2012 and its implementation, the provisions of the ARTPS Act, 2012 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the said Act, 2012. 18. 18. The ARTPS Rules, made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the ARTPS Act, 2012 have provided, inter-alia, for penalty, procedure of application for first appeal or second appeal, procedure for deciding first appeal or second appeal, individual presence of applicant/Designated Public Servant in the hearing, recovery of penalty, etc. 19. The State Government has thereafter, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Public Services Act, notified and brought a number of services under the purview of ARTPS Act, 2012. Amongst the services so notified and brought under the purview of ARTPS Act, 2012 includes NOC for transfer of movable property. 20. Now coming to the case in hand, the acknowledgment against the application filed by the petitioner is dated 17.12.2022. In terms of the Act, 2012 designated public servant for issuance of NOC for immovable property is the Deputy Commissioner or his nominee. The time stipulated is prescribed is total 30 days. Out of these 30 days, 10 days time is granted to the Circle Officer, 10 days time to the Lot Mandal and 10 days time to the office of the Deputy Commissioner. This court issued notice of motion in this case on 26.04.2023. Thus, the application was filed 17.12.2023 and till 26.04.2023, such application was neither rejected with reason as required, nor the public service was provided. However, such application was rejected on 05.12.2023 i.e. after issuance of the notice by this court. 21. The application status of the petitioner is also part of record, which goes to show that the application was received on 12.07.2022 and the Lot Mandal returned the same to the Circle Officer on 05.09.2023 i.e. after 1 year 1 month 27 days, however, this designated public servant is to complete his job within a period of 10 days. The Circle Officer received it on the same date i.e. 05.09.2023 and the Circle Officer forwarded the same to the Additional Deputy Commissioner. The Additional Deputy Commissioner received it on 05.09.2023 and therefore, he is either to provide designated public service or to reject the same with reason within a period of 10 days. However, said Additional Deputy Commissioner kept it pending till 05.12.2023 i.e. for 3 months. The Additional Deputy Commissioner received it on 05.09.2023 and therefore, he is either to provide designated public service or to reject the same with reason within a period of 10 days. However, said Additional Deputy Commissioner kept it pending till 05.12.2023 i.e. for 3 months. Thus, it is an admitted position that the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Lot Mandal failed to provide the designated public service or to reject such prayer for grant of public service within the time statutorily prescribed. 22. This court is also of the opinion that the prescription of time limit for providing the designated public service to a citizen and prescription of imposition of penalty, when public service is not provided beyond the prescribed time, is mandated to fix responsibility upon the designated officer and to strictly compel such designated public servant to follow the mandate and object of the Act, 2012 i.e. to deliver notified public services to the people of the State of Assam within the stipulated time limit. 23. That being the position, even if the contention of Mr. P N Goswami, Additional Advocate General is accepted that the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the designated officer once again, by curing the defect, for which the NOC was rejected, this court cannot be unmindful of clear violation of the time limit prescribed by the designated officers as recorded hereinabove and therefore, in any view of the matter, the aforesaid designated public servants are liable to pay the penalty to the petitioners. 24. This court has also observed that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 3 had enough time and energy to file affidavit before this court detailing the reason for rejection of the petitioners, however, this officer has no time to decide and even to reject the application of the petitioner within the time prescribed statutorily. 25. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that the concerned Lot Mandal and concerned Additional Deputy Commissioner is to pay penalty as prescribed. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) shall calculate the amount of penalty in terms of the Act, 12 and the Rules framed thereunder and pay the same to the petitioners. Such exercise be carried within a period of 30 days from the date of furnishing a copy of this order before the concerned District Commissioner . The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) shall calculate the amount of penalty in terms of the Act, 12 and the Rules framed thereunder and pay the same to the petitioners. Such exercise be carried within a period of 30 days from the date of furnishing a copy of this order before the concerned District Commissioner . The said District Commissioner shall also send a compliance report of such direction to the Registrar (Judicial), Gauhati High Court. 26. This court makes it clarified that at the relevant point of time admittedly the petitioners could not filed appeal as prescribed under the Act, 2012 for want designated portal, which is also admitted by the respondent and therefore, in view of the aforesaid, though efficacious alternative remedy was made available subsequent to filing of the writ petition, this court will not like to non suit the petitioners at present, as at the relevant point of time the petitioners did not have any efficacious remedy of appeal. 27. It is needless to say that the petitioners shall be at liberty to file a fresh application for grant of NOC and in the event such application is filed same be dealt with extant norms including the provisions of Act, 2012 and the Rules framed thereunder. 28. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the observation and direction made hereinabove. Parties to bear their own costs.