Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010193212022 2026:GAU-AS:6565 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6365/2022 JASIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA S/O SAMSUL HOQUE BARBHUIYA, VILL-BHAIRABPUR PART-V, P.O.- KALAIN, DIST-CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 ASSAM 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SILCHAR CACHAR-788001 ASSAM 4:OFFICER IN CHARGE DHOLAI POLICE STATION SILCHAR CACHAR-788001 ASSAM 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SILCHAR CACHAR-788001 ASSAM 6:ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/7 SILCHAR CACHAR-788001 ASSAM 7:ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND BENCH OFFICER PUBLIC GRIEVANCES CELL SILCHAR CACHAR-788001 ASSAM 8:DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (I/C PUBLIC GRIEVANCES OFFICER) SILCHAR CACHAR-788001 ASSAM 9:UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001 10:CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL BLOCK NO. 1 C.G.O. COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-11000 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R SENSUA, M. A. OASIS,MR D BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MRS. A GAYAN, LEARNED CGC,MR. C K S BARUAH, GA, ASSAM,ASSTT.S.G.I. Page No.# 3/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 13.05.2026 Heard Mr. G. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 8 and Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent Nos.9 and 10. 2. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks payment of an amount of Rs. 13,05,414/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Five Thousand Four Hundred Fourteen only) towards hiring charges in respect of his bus, inclusive of the daily charges payable towards the driver and handyman, from 26.07.2021 till the date of institution of the writ petition, in terms of the rates prescribed under the Office Memorandum dated 26.03.2021 issued by the Transport Department, Government of Assam. The petitioner has also projected a grievance regarding the damage caused to the said vehicle while it was under requisition by the respondent authorities. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is the owner of a TATA bus having a seating capacity of 32 persons, including the driver. According to the petitioner, the said vehicle had been purchased by availing financial assistance from a lending institution and constituted the principal source of livelihood for the petitioner and his family. 4. It is the petitioner’s case that on 26.07.2021, the respondent authorities requisitioned the said vehicle for transportation of police personnel to Lailapur in connection with law and order duties arising out of the Assam and Mizoram border dispute. During the course of such deployment, an incident involving armed violence took Page No.# 4/7 place in the border area, resulting in substantial damage to the petitioner’s vehicle. The grievance raised is that despite repeated representations seeking return of the vehicle as well as payment of the hiring charges and compensation arising from the damage caused, no effective relief was extended by the respondents, compelling the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the requisition of the vehicle is not in dispute. Referring to the Office Memorandum dated 26.03.2021, it is contended that for buses having more than 30 seats and up to 50 seats, the prescribed hiring charge is Rs. 2,448/- per diem, apart from daily allowances of Rs. 375/- for the driver and Rs. 300/- for the handyman. It is submitted that despite the admitted requisition and use of the petitioner’s vehicle for official purposes, the respondents failed to discharge their obligation to make payment in accordance with the notified rates. It is further contended that the petitioner’s vehicle having suffered extensive damage while in the custody and use of the State machinery, the respondents cannot evade responsibility altogether. 6. Per contra, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents, submits that the petitioner’s vehicle was subsequently recovered and kept in the police reserve campus and that the petitioner was informed accordingly but did not come forward to take possession thereof. It is further submitted that upon receipt of funds from the competent authority, the hiring charges payable to the petitioner were duly calculated, and an amount of Rs. 12,660/- was offered by way of cheque, which the petitioner declined to accept. 7. It is also the stand of the respondents that the Office Memorandum governing vehicle requisition specifically stipulates that while hiring a vehicle, the hiring authority shall ensure that the vehicle is properly insured so that the owner may claim damages from the insurance company in the event of accident or allied contingencies, and further that the hiring authority shall not incur expenditure towards repair of the hired vehicle. On the strength of the said stipulation, it is argued that the petitioner’s remedy, insofar as Page No.# 5/7 compensation for damage to the vehicle is concerned, lies against the insurer and not against the State respondents in these proceedings. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 9. Certain foundational facts are not in dispute. The petitioner’s vehicle was admittedly requisitioned by the respondent authorities on 26.07.2021 for official deployment in connection with the border situation. It is equally not in dispute that the vehicle suffered serious damage during the relevant period of deployment. 10. The police report annexed to the writ petition clearly records that the petitioner’s vehicle, which had been taken on requisition for law and order duty, was badly damaged during the firing incident at the Assam and Mizoram border. Thus, the factum of requisition as well as the occurrence of damage while the vehicle was under such deployment stand sufficiently established. 11. However, the existence of damage, by itself, does not conclude the controversy in favour of the petitioner, for the nature and extent of the enforceable claim must be tested in the backdrop of the governing terms of requisition and the materials brought before the Court. 12. At this stage, it would be apposite to notice the relevant provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 26.03.2021, which governs the hiring of vehicles for public purposes. The said memorandum prescribes the maximum rates payable for different categories of vehicles and also stipulates the daily allowances admissible to the driver and handyman. For buses above 30 seats and up to 50 seats, the prescribed hiring charge is Rs. 2,448/- per diem, apart from the notified daily allowances. 13. Equally significant are the conditions accompanying the said hiring arrangement. Clause (3) specifically stipulates that while hiring a vehicle, the hiring authority shall ensure that the vehicle is properly insured so that the owner may claim damages from the insurance company in the event of accident or related contingencies. Clause (4) further Page No.# 6/7 makes it explicit that the hiring authority shall not incur expenditure towards repair of the hired vehicle. 14. The materials on record further disclose that the respondents had processed the petitioner’s hiring charges and quantified the amount payable at Rs. 12,660/-, which, according to the respondents, was offered to the petitioner but was declined. In the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner’s explanation for declining the said amount is that the issue of compensation for the damaged vehicle remained unresolved. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner’s refusal to accept the hiring charges on account of dissatisfaction regarding compensation cannot enlarge the contractual or statutory entitlement flowing from the requisition itself. The claim towards hiring charges and the grievance concerning compensation for the damaged vehicle operate in distinct spheres and cannot be conflated for the purpose of adjudication. 16. So far as the hiring charges are concerned, the respondents have placed a categorical stand that the amount payable in accordance with the applicable norms had already been determined and offered to the petitioner. There is no material before this Court demonstrating that the said quantification is ex facie contrary to the applicable rate structure or that any legally enforceable entitlement survives beyond what has already been offered. 17. The principal grievance of the petitioner appears, in substance, to relate not to unpaid hiring charges but to the damage caused to the vehicle during the course of its official deployment. While the Court does not lose sight of the hardship that may have been occasioned to the petitioner, the scope of adjudication must remain confined to the legal framework governing the rights and obligations of the parties. 18. The governing Office Memorandum expressly contemplates a mechanism in relation to damage to requisitioned vehicles by requiring that the vehicle be properly insured so that the owner may seek recourse against the insurer. Simultaneously, the memorandum excludes liability on the part of the hiring authority towards repair expenditure. Once such Page No.# 7/7 conditions form part of the governing arrangement and it is not in dispute that the petitioner’s vehicle was, in fact, insured, the petitioner cannot, in the present proceedings, bypass the contractual framework and seek relief contrary thereto. 19. This Court is therefore of the view that, insofar as compensation for the damage to the vehicle is concerned, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to pursue the claim before the concerned insurance company in accordance with law and/or before the competent civil forum. The writ petition, as framed, does not warrant grant of the relief sought. 20. In view of the above discussion, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 22. It is, however, clarified that dismissal of the present writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from pursuing such remedy as may be available in law before any competent Court and/or the concerned insurance company in respect of the damage caused to the vehicle. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pranab Kumar Deka Digitally signed by Pranab Kumar Deka Date: 2026.05.13 18:25:23 +05'30'