Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010273772025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/276/2026 SMTI PRANATI DEBNATH W/O- RATAN CH. NATH DAS, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 3, BIDHANPALLY, P.O. KOKRAJHAR, P.S. AND DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783370. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM STATE HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM B.K. KAKATY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7. 5:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN) ASSAM B.K. KAKOTY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7. 6:THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN) ASSAM B.K. KAKOTY ROAD Page No.# 2/4 ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7. 7:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GUWAHATI ASSAM 8:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METRO (LAW AND ORDER) DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 9:THE MOTOR TRANSPORT OFFICER (M.T.O) KAMRUP METRO ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, MR. N ALI,MR A HOSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 13.07.2026 Heard Shri J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri M. Chetia, learned State Counsel.Considering the subject matter involved and the stand of the respondents in the affidavits, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is the registered owner of vehicles bearing registration nos. AS-16-G-3637 (M/Thar), AS-16-F-5419 (Scorpio) and AS-16- G-1025 (Bolero).The said vehicles were hired by the respondentsin the period 2021 to 2024 for which bills were raised amounting to Rs.33,80,376/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Eighty Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Six) only.However,the same were not Page No.# 3/4 released and accordingly, the writ petition has been filed. Shri Borbhuiya, the learned counsel has submitted that the amount involved is legally entitled to by the petitioner and therefore, a direction be issued in this regard. Shri Chetia, the learned State Counsel has however submitted that out of the aforesaid amount, an amount of Rs.2,35,256/-(Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Six) onlyhas already been paid to the petitioner. He has also submitted that on verification, it has been found that presently an amount of Rs.30,68,072/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Seventy Two) onlyis found due. On the issue of a claim of contractual bills to be entertained by a Writ Court, the Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Tamsher Ali vs. State of Assam reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1 has endorsed the principles laid down in the earlier case of Jatin Pathak: "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. BhailalBhai 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. " In the instant case, it is seen that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 7 on 15.06.2026, an admission has been made to the extent of an Page No.# 4/4 amount of Rs.30,68,072/-(Rupees Thirty Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Seventy Two) only.For ready reference, the relevant pleadings are extracted herein below: “(ii) Scrutiny of the bills further, reveals that petitioner in violation of the per diem rate fixed by the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department has claimed per diem rate as Rs.1450/- (Rupees One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty) only instead of Rs.990/- (Rupees Nine Hundred Ninety) only. Accordingly, the remaining 19 (nineteen) No’s of bills were re-examined and corrected by deducting the excess forwarded to the sanctioning authority to accord Financial Sanction of Rs.30,68,072/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Seventy Two) only in 2 (two) proposals. As a result of the corrections in few bills an amount of Rs.77,048/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand Forty Eight) only have been deducted. Therefore, the petitioner should be entitled an amount of Rs.30,68,072/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Seventy Two). The details of the proposals showing bills are as follows:- ...” Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to a direction for release of the contractual bills in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Full Bench which would require placing of the petitioner in the chronological list as per seniority.Let such exercise be undertaken and completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant