Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010237552025 2026:GAU-AS:3601 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6747/2025 BHASKAR SHARMA SON OF KAMAL SHARMA AND A RESIDENT OF NORTH BONGAIGAON WARD NO. 8, DIST- BONGAIGAON, PIN -783380, ASSAM PHONE NO 8999167356 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ULUBARI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781007 3:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783370 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. A Brahma Page No.# 2/4 Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. K Gogoi Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 11.03.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. A Brahma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. K Gogoi, the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam who appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-26D8444 (Scorpio). The respondent authorities had hired the petitioner’s vehicle on different dates for their emergency use. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the hire-charge bills along with the original hiring orders before the respondent authorities for release of his dues amounting to Rs.12,65,472/-. However, the said amount has not been paid to the petitioner till date and it is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the aforesaid amount has been duly acknowledged by the respondent authorities, however, Page No.# 3/4 despite such acknowledgment, the outstanding dues have not been released to the petitioner till date. In addition to that, the learned counsel for the petitioner on many occasions had represented before the respondent Authorities for release of the outstanding dues, however, an amount of Rs.12,65,472/-is still pending. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been pursuing the matter delinquently with the respondents, but the respondent authorities have not shown any interest in making the payment of the outstanding dues to the petitioner for which the petitioner is facing hardship. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent authorities have failed to discharge their duty in accordance with law and the same has caused prejudice to the petitioner. 5. Mr. K Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State has submitted that the respondent No.4 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. 6. From a perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.4, it is seen that the respondent authorities have admitted their liability of an amount of Rs.12,83,270/-. The details can be seen at paragraph No.6 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, which being relevant is reproduced hereinunder:- “6. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 5, 6 and 7 the writ petition deponent begs to submit that the fact is, the undersigned had hired the vehicles (Scorpio) from the Petitioner w.e.f 01-02-2021 to 11- 11-2022 and the Petitioner submitted the bill for Rs. 12,83,270/- (Rupees twelve lakh Eighty Three thousand Two hundred Seventy) only (statement enclosed in Annexure -A) of the bill copy of the vehicles so hired by the respondent authorities from time to time. As the authority has no power to Page No.# 4/4 sanction the hire charge bills of the petitioner, accordingly all the hire charge bills of the petitioners has already been taken up with the Higher authority for according necessary sanction to release of-admissible fund. Hence the allegation that the authority has not taking any initiative for payment is not true.” 7. It is further seen from Annexure-A enclosed to the affidavit-in-opposition wherein the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar who is the respondent No.4 had duly verified that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs. Rs.12,83,270/-. 8. Upon perusal of the materials on record, and more particularly the paragraph quoted-above, it would be seen that the respondents, therefore, admit that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.12,83,270/-. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following observations and directions:- i) The petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.12,83,270/- as admitted by the respondents. ii) The said amount of Rs.12,83,270/- be paid to the petitioner within a period of 6 (six) months from the date, a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the respondent No.2, i.e. the Director General of Police, Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati. JUDGE Comparing Assistant