WP(C)/3710/2025 of MAINA NATH Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS on 20 August 2026

ORDER

21.08.2026

Heard Shri U. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has approached this Court with a prayer for release of hire charges pertaining to the vehicles amounting to Rs.28,28,116/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Sixteen).

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner had provided two nos. of vehicles to the respondent no. 3, the details of which are as follows: VEHICLE NO MODEL AS 01 EN 6468 TOYOTA INNOVA CRYSTA AS 01 FA 8456 TOYOTA INNOVA CRYSTA

3. The petitioner had accordingly raised bills the total of which comes to Rs.28,28,116/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Sixteen). As the bills have not been paid, the instant petition has been filed.

4. Shri M. Chetia, learned State Counsel has submitted that an affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 3 on 07.11.2025 in which, an amount of Rs.28,16,839/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Nine) has been admitted. He has submitted that due to lack of funds, the amount has not been able to be released. He has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition which reads as follows: “5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition the answering deponent begs to state that the petitioner has claimed hire charges amount of Rs 28,28,116/-(Rupees twenty eight lakhs twenty eight thousands one hundred sixteen) only for hiring of the vehicles belongs to the petitioner. Further the deponent begs to state that considering the claimed made by the petitioner, the concerned records were scrutinized and found that the petitioner has claimed an excess amount of Rs. 11,277/-(Rupees eleven thousands two hundred seventy seven) only, whereas the actual outstanding amount is Rs 28,16,839/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs sixteen thousands eight hundred thirty nine) only. Accordingly, these Bills have been forwarded to the Assam Police Headquarters after observing required formalities to accord approval of sanction and allotment of fund against the proposals.”

5. The scope of adjudication by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter pertaining to claim for contractual dues is limited as those involve disputed questions of facts. However, the Hon’ble Full Bench in the aforesaid case of Tamsher Ali & Ors. -Vs-State of Assam and Others, reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1 has laid down that to entertain a writ petition for adjudicating a claim for contractual dues, certain essential requirements are to be fulfilled which, amongst others would require an acknowledgment in writing by the Chief Engineer/ Head of the Department.

6. In the instant case, it is seen that the acknowledgment of a part of the liability has come by way of an affidavit in the present proceeding filed by the respondent no. 3 and therefore the same would substantially meet the requirement laid down by the Hon’ble Full Bench.

7. It is accordingly directed that for the admitted liability of Rs.28,16,839/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Nine), the principles laid down in the case of (Tamser Ali) would apply and the claim be considered and paid in terms of the said principles in accordance with law.

8. For the rest of the amount, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court as it would be in the realm of disputed questions of fact.

9. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant