Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010143242025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3700/2025 MINAKSHI BORA D/O- LATE HEMKANTA BORA, R/O- HOUSE NO. 181, KAHILIPARA TOWER HOUSE, GUWAHATI-19. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM HAVING ITS OFFICE SITUATED AT B. K. KAKOTY ROAD ULUBARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI-781008. 3:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HAVING ITS OFFICE SITUATED AT NERIPSTR BUILDING RESHAM NAGAR KHANAPARA ASSAM PIN-781022 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U SAIKIA, MR. Z ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI 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.50,45,709/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Nine). 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner had provided three nos. of vehicles to the respondent no. 3, the details of which are as follows: VEHICLE NO MODEL AS 01 DQ 0944 BOLERO ZLX AS 01 DQ 2700 BOLERO ZLX AS 01 EK6864 MAHINDRA SCORPIO 3. The petitioner had accordingly raised bills, the total of which comes to Rs. 50,45,709/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Nine). 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 08.12.2025 in which, an amount of Rs. 46,18,865/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakh Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Five) 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 (II) of the affidavit-in-opposition which reads as follows: Page No.# 3/4 “5. (II) However, the concerned bills of Bolero (Non A/C) vehicles have already been corrected as per the rate fixed by the Transport Department and forwarded these bills along with the bills of Mahendra Scorpio vehicles to the sanctioning authority to accord approval of sanction and allotment of fund. Thus, there is a difference of Rs. 4,26,844/- against the total claimed of Rs. 50,45,709/-. Such being the position, now the petitioner is entitled of Rs. 46,18,865/-. Accordingly, details of the proposals (i) PROPOSAL NO, 1771-1790 (RV) dated 06.08.2025, (ii) PROPOSAL NO. 1813-1825 (RV) dated 06.08.2025, (iii) PROPOSAL NO. 1868-1875 (RV) dated 18.08.2025, (iv) PROPOSAL NO. 1977-1978 (RV) dated 27.08.2025 and (v) PROPOSAL NO. 2231 (RV) dated 07.11.2025 are forwarded to the sanctioning authority. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Admin.), Guwahati also submitted a report dated 07.11.2025 stating that proposals amounting to Rs. 46,18,865.00 (Rupees Forty Six Lakh Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Five) has been forwarded to Assam Police Headquarters, Ulubari, Guwahati for according necessary sanction.” 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. 46,18,865/- ( Rupees Forty Six Lakh Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Five), the principles laid down in the case of (Tamser Ali) would apply and the claim be Page No.# 4/4 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