Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/1129/2025, order dated 12.03.2025 (Arun Dev Choudhury, J.). Petitioners Nabanita and Deepjita Chakrabarty sought writ intervention because respondent No. 4, the Circle Officer, Bilashipara, had not completed demarcation of their father Samir Prasad Chakrabarty's land despite several dates fixed, the demarcated land being intended for sale to fund their father's medical treatment. The Court reviewed the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012 (Assam Act no. IX of 2012), amended by the Assam Right to Public Services (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Assam Act no. VII of 2019), and the Assam Right to Public Services Rules, 2012 framed under Section 15; noted that 'demarcation' is among the services notified under the Act by notification no. AR.69/2011/PtII/96 dated 10.04.2013; that appeals and second appeals lie under Section 8 to the Appellate Authority and the Assam State Commission for Right to Public Services, whose functions are presently exercised by the Assam Administrative Tribunal under notification no. AR.39/2017/149 dated 04.03.2020; and that Section 14 gives the Act overriding effect. Relying on Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, [1998] 8 SCC 1, on the plenary nature of Article 226 jurisdiction and the self-imposed restraint where an effective alternative remedy exists, the Court held the statutory remedy efficacious and adequate, including under Sections 9(2)(a) and 8(3)(4), with the appellate authority empowered to impose penalty for delayed service, and found the writ petition not to be entertained. On counsel's prayer, the petition stood disposed of on withdrawal with liberty to pursue the remedy under the Act.
