THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Binita Baruah, W/o- Kushal Bora - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Rep. By The Principal Secretary To The Govt Of Assam, Home And Political Department And Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) 4459 2025
Decided On : 10-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner provided vehicle and seeks compensation. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner claims hardship due to non-payment. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents admitted liability for payment. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court orders payment of admitted amount to petitioner. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. A. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner provided one Gypsy vehicle to the Respondent Authorities in the Assam Police Commissionerate. The said vehicle was deployed and utilised by the Respondent Authorities for the period starting from 01.05.2017 to 30.06.2017; 01.01.2021 to 30.06.2021; 01.07.2021 to 31.12.2021; 01.01.2022 to 30.06.2022; 01.07.2022 to 31.12.2022 and 01.01.2023 to 31.03.2023. The petitioner claims Hire Charge bills/requisition compensation amounting to Rs.7,24,488/- which was admitted and approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is stated that though the Respondent Authorities have duly admitted the bill amount, however the said amount has not been disbursed to the petitioner till date.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been pursuing the matter diligently with the respondents, but the Respondent Authorities have not shown any interest in making the payment of the admitted amount of Rs.7,24,488/- due to the petitioner for which the petitioner is facing hardship. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Respondent Authorities have failed to discharge their duty in accordance with law and the same has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
4. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has placed before this Court a communication dated 10.11.2025 filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) which is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”.
5. From a perusal of the said communication dated 10.11.2025, it is seen that the Respondent Authorities have admitted their liability of an amount of Rs.7,24,488/-.
6. Upon perusal of the materials on record, it would be seen that the Respondents therefore admit that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.7,24,488/-. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following observations and directions:-
i) The petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.7,24,488/- as admitted by the Respondents.
ii) The said amount of Rs.7,24,488/- be paid to the petitioner within a period of 6 (six) months from the date, a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the respondent No.3, i.e. the Director General of Police, Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati.
Government authorities are liable to timely disburse admitted amounts for services rendered, ensuring accountability and reducing prejudice against service providers.
Where state authorities admit liability for services rendered, the court may exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct the disbursement of the admitted amount within a specified timeframe to ensure th....
The authority's acknowledgment of a specific owed amount obligates prompt payment under Article 226, while procedural steps for fund release must be adhered to.
The court affirmed that an accepted payment claim creates an obligation on authorities to disburse the amount promptly to avoid undue hardship to the claimant.
Government authorities must comply with contractual obligations by ensuring timely payment for services rendered, preventing undue hardship on service providers.
When state authorities admit liability for services rendered, they are obligated to discharge the debt. The court may exercise writ jurisdiction to direct the payment of such admitted outstanding due....
Petitioner's claim for dues upheld; respondents must pay admitted amount and verify remaining claims within specified time.
Where state authorities admit liability for outstanding payments due for services rendered, the court may issue directions for the disbursement of such funds within a specified period to ensure the f....
Where state authorities explicitly admit to a financial liability for services rendered, the court may exercise its jurisdiction to direct the timely disbursement of the admitted amount to the claima....
Public authorities have a duty to ensure timely payment of admitted liabilities, and delays without valid justification can prejudice claimants.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.