Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010020302026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/637/2026 MUNDEEP DEKA S/O- NARENDRA NATH DEKA, RESIDENT OF- HOUSE NO. 21, BALIJAN PATH, HOCKEY STADIUM ROAD, SAWKUCHI, PIN- 781040, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM STATE HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM B. K. KAKATY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 7. 4:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN) ASSAM B. K. KAKOTY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7. 5:THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN) ASSAM B. K. KAKOTY ROAD ULUBARI Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI-7. 6:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI ASSAM 7:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METRO (LAW AND ORDER) DIST- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM. 8:MOTOR THE TRANSPORT OFFICER (M.T.O.) KAMRUP METRO ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, MRS. K H CHOUDHURY,MR. L MOHAN,W.H. DEVI,MR A HOSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 29.07.2026 Heard Shri N. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S.R. Baruah, learned State Counsel. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a direction for release of hire charges for the vehicles utilized by the respondent authorities.It is the case of the petitioner that his vehicles bearing registration No. AS-25-U-8656 (Indigo) and AS-01- FW-9596 (Bolero) were hired by the respondents in the year 2023-24.However, the bills raised for such hire have not been paid. 3. 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 Page No.# 3/4 Writ Court can interfere and pass necessary order(s). In the aforesaid case the following guidelines have been endorsed: “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 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.” 4. 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. 5. In the instant case, however, it is seen that the respondent no. 6 has filed an affidavit on 24.07.2026 admitting the liability.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. 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 6, in paragraph 6, the liability has been acknowledged, the relevant part of which is extracted herein below: “That with regard to the statements made in paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition, the Page No.# 4/4 answering deponent begs to state that the bills pertaining to the amount of Rs. 12,98,884/- (Twelve Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Four) only have already been forwarded to the Assam Police Headquarters to accord approval of sanction as stated herein above. As the approval of sanction against each proposal is awaited, so the outstanding claim amounts are pending.” 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the admission of the 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. 8. 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