JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities in not making payment of the bills of the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner herein is a reputed entrepreneur and is engaged in the business of providing vehicles for hire across the State of Assam to various Government as well as private organizations.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a Maruti Gypsy vehicle bearing No. AS-01-DR-4361, belonging to the Petitioner was hired by the Respondent Authorities during various periods between 2022 and 2024 and the rates were fixed by the Respondent Authorities as per the notification dated 06.02.2014 issued by the Transport Department, Government of Assam

5. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Additional District Magistrate, Kamrup (M), requisitioned the aforesaid vehicle on hire basis for the periods mentioned above and it was also deployed by Respondent No.2 for police services. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that for the periods from 01.01.2022 to 30.06.2022, 01.07.2022 to 31.12.2022, 01.01.2023 to 31.03.2023, 01.10.2023 to 30.11.2023, 01.12.2023 to 31.12.2023 and 01.01.2024 to 31.12.2024, Respondent No. 2 had admittedly generated hire charge bills amounting to Rs.9,00,058/-. It was submitted that despite Respondent No.2 itself having raised the hire charge bills, the said amount of Rs.9,00,058/- has not been released to the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner had submitted a representation on 06.06.2025 to the Respondent Authorities seeking release of the amount however the said amount of Rs.9,00,058/- is still pending, for which the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate during the course of hearing submitted that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondent No.2 wherein at Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7, it has been categorically mentioned that the Petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.8,11,498/- and not Rs.9,00,058/-. Taking into account its relevance, this Court reproduces the Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 herein under:

“6. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph no.5 of the writ petition, the answering deponent begs to state that to ascertain the correctness of the claimed of outstanding dues of Rs.9,00,058/- needs to be examined with the concerned records:

The facts reveals from the records as well as examination of the bills received during the period from 2022 to 2024 are as follows:-

(i) The verification of concerned records reveals that the petitioner had in fact claimed excess amount of Rs.88,560/- (Rupees Eighty Eight thousand Five hundred and Sixty) only, whereas the actual outstanding dues was Rs.8,11,498/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Eleven thousand four hundred and Ninety Eight) only. Accordingly, all the 9 (nine) numbers of hire charge bills have been scrutinized with the records available for taking further follow up steps.

(ii) After completion of required formalities, these bills have been forwarded to the Sanctioning Authority, i.e. Assam Police Headquarters to accord approval of sanction and allotment of fund. The proposals forwarded to the authority are as follows:

Proposal No.2111-2118 (RV) dated 08.09.2025.

Proposal No.2228(RV) dated 31.10.2025.

7. That with regards to the statements made in paragraph No.6 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that bills pertaining to the amount of Rs.8,11,498/