Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010273422024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6989/2024 ANJANA GHOSH W/O- RAJENDRA KUMAR GHOSH, R/O- H/NO- 28, ML BARUAH LANE, SILPUKHURI, GUWAHATI- 781003 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 4:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001 5:THE MOTOR TRANSPORT OFFICER POLICE RESERVE CITY GUWAHATI A.T. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781001 ASSAM. Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J K Bhuyan, MS. P GHOSH,MS B GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 28.07.2026 Heard Shri J. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. R. Baruah, learned State Counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed for a direction for release of hire charges of the vehicles which were utilised by the respondent authorities. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that 5 nos. of vehicles (buses) bearing registration nos. AS 24/C-1407, AS 01 JC 4121, AS 11 C 5478, AS 01 CC 7100 and AS 01 FC 4814 were hired by the respondents from time to time and bills were raised. However, there has been an outstanding of an amount of Rs.49,13,518/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakh Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Eighteen) only. As the same was not paid, the instant petition has been filed. 4. The scope of interference by a Writ Court in matters pertaining to contractual dues is limited. However, the Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Tamsher Ali Vs State of Assam reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1 has laid down certain guidelines in which a Writ Court can interfere and pass necessary order(s). 5. In the aforesaid case of Tamsher Ali (supra), the Hon’ble Full Bench has laid down the following conditions: “i) All claims for payment of outstanding dues would be entertained for consideration provided the same are admitted by the respective departments. The admissions of liability shall have to be certified by the respective Chief Engineer in respect of Works Page No.# 3/4 Departments and in respect of other departments by the Head of the departments. ii) All claims for payment of admitted outstanding dues would be entertained for payment provided the claims are lodged before the competent authority within a period of three years from the date of the payment becoming due. iii) All claims for payment of admitted outstanding dues in respect of which the contractors intend or have approached the Hon'ble Court, in such cases, the contractors must approach the Hon'ble High Court within a period of 3 years from the date of the payment becoming due. This view has been taken as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai and Ors. reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 at Para 21 has observed that though provisions of Limitation Act do not as such apply to proceedings under Article 226, the period of Limitation prescribed by Limitation Act for instituting a civil action may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured.” 6. As noted above, amongst others, it is necessary to have an acknowledgement of the liability in writing by the Chief Engineer/Head of the Department for entertaining a writ petition. 7. In the instant case, however, it is seen that the respondent no. 4 has filed an affidavit on 16.07.2026 admitting the liability. 8. Shri Baruah, the learned State Counsel has submitted that in the affidavit so filed, there is an admission which however is of an amount which is lesser than the amount claimed. He has also submitted that once the sanction and allotment of funds are there, the outstanding would be paid to the petitioner. 9. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 4, in paragraph 5, the liability has been acknowledged, the relevant part of which is extracted herein below: “... the Deponent further begs to state that it is found that at present an amount of Rs.37,40,240/- (Thirty Seven Lakh Forty Thousand Two Hundred Forty) only is payable to the petitioner and once sanction and allotment of fund received against the abovementioned proposals from the authority, the same will be credited to the bank account of the petitioner.” 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the admission of the Page No.# 4/4 liability by way of an affidavit, this Court is of the opinion that the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Full Bench in the aforesaid case of Tamsher Ali (supra) would be applicable. 11. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed by directing the respondent authorities to treat the claim of the petitioner in the manner indicated by the Full Bench and release the outstanding in an expeditious manner and in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant