Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010100622024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2668/2024 RUNU BEGUM WIFE OF MANOWAR HUSSAIN, RESIDENT OF SANIADI, HAJO, P.O.- SANIADI, P.S.- HAJO, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM STATE HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM B.K. KAKATY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 7. 5:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMIN) Page No.# 2/7 ASSAM B.K. KAKOTY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7. 6:THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN) ASSAM B.K. KAKOTY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7. 7:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GUWAHATI ASSAM. 8:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP(M) (LAW AND ORDER) DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 9:THE MOTOR TRANSPORT OFFICER (M.T.O.) KAMRUP(M) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, MR A HOSSAIN,MR. L MOHAN,MRS. K H CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 09.06.2025 Heard Mr. L. Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Chutia, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking inter-alia for release of the admissible amount of money Page No.# 3/7 payable to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 30,52,780/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty) only, in total as due to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent authorities on the basis of the vehicles hired by them for requirement. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No. AS-25-CC-6180 (Mahindra Thar), AS-15-CC- 6181 (Mahindra Thar) and AS-01-KC-9249 (Tata Safari) respectively. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as per the request made by the respondents for maintaining law and order situation, the petitioner agreed to provide the aforesaid vehicles on hire to the State respondents. Thereafter, the respondent authorities utilized the aforesaid vehicles of the petitioner during the period 2020-2023 on different dates and after utilizing the same, they refused to make payment of the hire charges. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. L. Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the hire charges of the petitioner's vehicle amounting to Rs. 30,15,980/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty) only, has been admitted by the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition. 5. Mr. M. Chutia, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents submits that due to non-availability of fund, the aforesaid payment has not been yet released to the petitioner. 6. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the contending parties and have perused the materials Page No.# 4/7 available on record. 7. Apt at the outset to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit-in- opposition filed on behalf of respondent No. 7 on 01.08.2024, which reads as hereunder:- “5. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that as per report, concerned records were scrutinized to ascertain the authenticity of the claim made by the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition. During the course of examination of the relevant records, it is found that the petitioner has submitted 13 numbers of hire charge bills amounting to Rs-30,52,780/- on various dates. From the examination of the bills it reveals that the petitioner has included the driver allowance claiming engagement of driver to drive the vehicle No. As-01-KC-9249 for the period from 01.07.2020 to 31.12.2020. Whereas, the records reveals that 1 (one) police driver was engaged by the Motor Transport Officer from Police Reserve for that period to drive the aforesaid vehicle. Thereby, the petitioner is not entitled of the amount as claimed for driver allowance in the bill. Thus the difference of amount of Rs. 36,800/- is treated as excess amount. Accordingly, the actual claim amount stand as Rs. 30,15,980/-instead of Rs-30,52,780/- as per the records available. The matter relating to the payment of hire charges claim amount to the petitioner always depends on the sanction and allotment of fund from the Sanctioning Authority. The answering deponent further submits that till date the required sanction against the proposal and allotment of fund from the sanctioning authority is yet to be received due to which the payment of the proposal amount is pending. The details of the proposal is appended below:- Sl.N o Vehicle No. From To Amount Proposal No. 1. AS-25 CC- 6180 01.07.2021 31.12.2021 Rs. 228068.00 2. AS-25 CC- 6180 01.07.2021 31.12.2022 Rs. 191268.00 3. AS-25 CC- 01.01.2021 30.06.2021 Rs. 224350.00 Page No.# 5/7 6180 4275- 4287 (RV) Dated: 07.06. 2024 4. AS-25 CC- 6180 01.01.2022 30.06.2022 Rs. 224350.00 5. AS-25 CC- 6180 01.07.2020 31.12.2020 Rs. 228068.00 6. AS-25 CC- 6181 01.10.2023 30.11.2023 Rs. 90732.00 7. AS-25 CC- 6181 01.07.2020 31.12.2020 Rs. 228068.00 8. AS-25 CC- 6181 01.01.2021 30.06.2021 Rs. 224350.00 9. AS-25 CC- 6181 01.07.2021 31.12.2021 Rs. 228068.00 10. AS-25 CC- 6181 01.01.2022 30.06.2022 Rs. 224350.00 11. AS-25 CC- 6181 01.07.2022 31.12.2022 Rs. 228068.00 12. AS-25 KC- 9249 01.07.2020 31.12.2020 Rs. 334720.00 13. AS-25 KC- 9249 01.07.2022 31.12.2022 Rs. 371520.00 TOTAL AMOUNT Rs.30,15,980.00 6. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph No. 5 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that the claim amount of the petitioner always depends on the sanction and allotment of fund from the Sanctioning Authority. The Deponent further begs to state that the Hire Charges Bills received from the petitioner has already forwarded to the Sanctioning Authority after scrutiny and as soon as sanction and allotment of fund is received from the authority, the same will be credited to the bank account of the petitioner. Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner in this para of the writ petition is not a fact. Page No.# 6/7 7. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph Nos. 6,7,8,9 and 10 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to reiterate the statement made in the foregoing paragraph No.5 and 6 of this affidavit in opposition. 8. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that the averment made therein is a matter born out of record. However, it is further stated that necessary steps has already been taken and once sanction of entitled amount and allotment of fund from the Sanctioning Authority is received, the entitled amount will be credited to the bank account of the petitioner.” 8. Reading of the aforesaid paragraphs of the affidavit-in-opposition, it appears that the admitted amount of Rs. 30,15,980/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty) only due to the petitioner against the hiring of the subject vehicles shall be paid to the petitioner, upon receiving the sanction of the aforesaid amount and allotment of fund from the Sanctioning Authority thereof. Non-availability of fund cannot be a ground for depriving the admitted legitimate bills of the contractor. 9. In view of the outstanding liabilities of the respondents towards the petitioner amounting to Rs. 30,15,980/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty) only, the same having been admitted, I am of the firm opinion that this writ petition, in the interest of justice, can be disposed of by directing the respondents to pay the said amount within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. It is ordered accordingly. 11. It is needless to be clarified that all the respondents shall co-ordinate with each other to ensure that the order passed by this Court is strictly complied Page No.# 7/7 within the time frame provided in the order. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant