Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4594 (GAU)

LAXMAN RAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

WP(C)/2157/2026 · 2026-04-23

Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010077762026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2157/2026 LAXMAN RAM PRORIATOR OF L.R. BHADU CONSTRUCTION /OWNER S/O MANGILAL, WARD NO 05 TUWELL KE PAS, DERAJISAR, RAJASTHAN 331811 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7 3:THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER TINSUKIA ASSSAM PIN- 787057 4:SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. AT SECOND FLOOR OPPOSITE BSNL COLONY NH-11 JAIPUR ROAD BIKANER- 334001 REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER LEGAL-21 PATULLOS ROAD CHENNAI- 600012 5:HIRARAM S/O SRI DASU RAM JAKHAR Page No.# 2/3 R/O VILLAGE- BIGA TAHSIL- SRIDUNGARAD DISTRICT- BIKANER RAJASTHAN 6:OFFICER-IN-CHARGE TINSUKIA POLICE STATION TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 78612 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R M CHOUDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 24.04.2026 Heard Shri R.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N. Goswami, learned State Counsel as well as Ms. M.D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department. As per the facts projected, the petitioner had sold his vehicle to one L.R. Bhadu Construction. However, the same has been used by the respondent no.5 and the price of the vehicle has also not been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has also contended that he is required to pay the instalment connected to the loan for the vehicle. In the opinion of this Court, the dispute raised is entirely in the nature of a private dispute with the respondent no. 5 and this Writ Court may not be the appropriate forum for adjudication of such dispute. This Court has also noticed that the documents all relate to Bikaner in the State of Rajasthan. Page No.# 3/3 At this stage, the learned counsel has clarified that the vehicle is presently in use in the district of Tinsukia. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner would however be at liberty to raise the dispute in the appropriate Civil Court at Tinsukia. JUDGE Comparing Assistant