Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010223322023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5843/2023 OSMAN GONI S/O- NASER UDDIN, R/O- GUNIALGURI, P.S- KALGACHIA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781319 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (DGP) ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07 ASSAM 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMIN) ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI ASSAM 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHUBRI DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 5:THE MOTOR TRANSPORT OFFICER DHUBRI Page No.# 2/4 DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A AHMED, A. KHANAM,MR F A AHMED,MS F AHMED,MISS M GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 19.02.2025 Heard Mr. SA Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Bokalial, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the release of an amount of Rs.6,14,656/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Six only), which is due to be paid to him by the authorities for the vehicle hired by them as per their requirement. 3. It appears that the petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.AS-01/DC-4039 (Tata Sumo), which was hired by the respondent no. 4, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri for the period of 2016 to 2019 in different occasions. It further appears that the petitioner submitted his bill after the release of his vehicle, which amount to Rs.6,14,656/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Six only). Since no payment Page No.# 3/4 was made, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 4. This Court by order dated 04.10.2023 had issued notice to the respondents. An affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent no.4 has been filed on 13.02.2025 and this affidavit-in-opposition is sworn by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime, Dhubri. 5. At Paragraph-7 and 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition, there is a clear admission that the amount raised by the petitioner is not a correct amount. However, the amount payable to the petitioner is found to be Rs.6,13,056/- (Six Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Fifty Six only). 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is agreeable to the amount admitted by the respondent no.4 in his affidavit-in- opposition. However, in spite of their admission the amount has not been released. 7. Learned Government Advocate, Assam, on the other hand, submits that due to paucity of fund the admitted amount found payable to the petitioner could not be released. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings available before the Court, it is seen that in respect of the claims made by the petitioner, the respondent no.4 has filed the affidavit-in-opposition, which is sworn by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime, Dhubri. In the Page No.# 4/4 said affidavit-in-opposition it has been admitted that an amount of Rs.6,13,056/- (Six Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Fifty Six only) is found payable to the petitioner towards hire charges of the vehicle bearing registration No.AS- 01/DC-4039 (Tata Sumo). 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the claims made by the petitioner being admitted, the respondents are duty bound to release the amount. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the respondents, more particularly, the respondent no.3 to release the outstanding amount found payable to the petitioner as is mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no.4. All steps necessary for releasing the required amount including raising of necessary proposals for requisite fund are to be undertaken by the respondents as expeditiously as possible preferably within outer limit of 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The payment of the admitted amount should be completed by the concerned respondents as per the guidelines laid down in Tamsher Ali Vs. State of Assam and Ors, reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1. 10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant