Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010284892025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/127/2026 DUDHNATH BHAGAT SON OF BIDESHI BHAGAT, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILL- VTC BOZDOLONG, .O. KHARIKHANA, DISTRICT- HOJAI, PIN-782446, VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS , REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM B.K. KAKATY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007. 4:THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENEAL OF POLICE (A ASSAM B.K. KAKATY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007. 5:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAMREN DISTRICT- WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. PIN-782486 Page No.# 2/4 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HAMREN DISTRICT- WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. PIN- 782486 7:THE MOTOR TRANSPORT OFFICER MO POLICE RESERVE HAMREN DISTRICT- WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. PIN-78248 Advocate for the Petitioner : S SINGH, MR. S K SINGH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 20.07.2026 Heard Shri S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri M. Chetia, learned State Counsel. 2. Considering the subject matter and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. Suffice it to mention that the contesting respondent has filed affidavit on 18.06.2026. 3. The matter relates to a claim for hire charges of the vehicle of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle (Bolero) bearing registration no. AS-09D-9050 which was taken on hire by the District Administration of the West Karbi Anglong for official duties for the period 01.03.2020 to 31.01.2022. The petitioner had accordingly, submitted bills totalling to Rs.6,34,664/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand Six Hundred Page No.# 3/4 Sixty-Four) only. As the bills were not paid, the petitioner had approached this Court. 4. Shri Singh, the learned counsel has submitted that the amount in question is admitted by the respondent. In this connection he has submitted that the respondent no. 5 in the affidavit has admitted the liability. 5. Shri M. Chetia, learned State Counsel has submitted that upon issuance of notice, the matter was examined and the respondent no. 5 has filed the affidavit on 18.06.2026. He has submitted that part of the amount has already been paid and there is a balance amount of Rs.1,91,396/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety One Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Six) only. 6. The scope of interference / passing of orders by a Writ Court in a claim for contractual dues is circumscribed. This is because of the fact that there are disputed questions of fact. However, the Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Tamsher Ali vs. State of Assam reported in 2008 (4) GLT 1 has laid down certain guidelines in which a Writ Court may also pass appropriate orders in such petitions. For ready reference, the principles are extracted herein below: "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 Page No.# 4/4 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. " 7. In the present case, the acknowledgment of liability has come in the form of an affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5 on 18.06.2026. For ready reference, the relevant pleadings of the said affidavit are extracted herein below: “5. … It is further submitted that the outstanding liabilities for the remaining period, namely from 01.03.2020 to 31.03.2020, 01.04.2020 to 30.04.2020, to 01.05.2020 to 31.05.2020 and 08.10.2021 to 31.10.2021, amounting to Rs.1,91,396/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety One Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Six only), shall be cleared after release of the requisite funds by the Government of Assam.” 8. In view of such admission by way of affidavit by the competent authority, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner would be covered by the principles and directions passed by the Hon’ble Full Bench. 9. Let the claim of the petitioner accordingly be treated in the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Full Bench by placing his name in the chronological order and release the balance amount expeditiously and in accordance with law. 10. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant