Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010020312026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/648/2026 SUSHILA DEKA W/O NARENDRA NATH DEKA R/O HOUSE NO. 5, BALIJAN PATH, HOCKEY STADIUM ROAD, SAWKUCHI, 781040, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), 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 Page No.# 2/4 B.K KAKOTY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI - 7 6:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI ASSAM 7:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP(M) (LAW AND ORDER) DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 8:THE MOTOR TRANSPORT OFFICER (M.T.O) KAMRUP(M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A HOSSAIN, MR. N ALI,MRS. K H CHOUDHURY,MR. J I BORBHUIYA 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-01-DX-1299 (Gypsy), AS-01-EX- 4963 (Gypsy), AS-01-EY-9106 (Bolero) and AS-01-LC-4917 (Mini Bus) were hired by the respondents in the year 2023-24.However, the bills raised for such hire have not been paid. Page No.# 3/4 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 endorsed certain guidelines in which a Writ Court can interfere and pass necessary order(s) the relevant observations which read as follows: “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. Page No.# 4/4 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 answering deponent begs to state that the bills pertaining to the amount of Rs. 27,23,342/- (Twenty Seven Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Three Hundred Forty Two) 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