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 dues within a reasonable timeframe to ensure justice.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. S. K. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. G. Bokolial, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the Petitioner 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 the owner of 12 (twelve) vehicles bearing Registration Nos. AS-01-DP-2024 (Bolero), AS-01-EE-4373 (Tata Safari), AS-01-DF-7480 (Tata Safari), AS-01-HC-1274 (Tata Safari), AS-01-BN-0039 (Tata Sumo), AS-01-DQ-5301 (M/Van), AS- 01-DP-6053 (Scorpio), AS-01-EQ-5909 (M/Van), AS-01-DP-1325 (M/Van), AS-01-FP-1898 (Eco), AS-01-FG-9884 (Scorpio) and AS- 01-HC-6024 (M/Van). It is the case of the Petitioner that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan District, Guwahati, along with the Motor Transport Officer, Office of the Police Commissionerate, Guwahati, jointly issued several orders hiring the said 12 vehicles for public service purposes, namely, for maintaining law and order in the State of Assam.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, thereafter, the Petitioner submitted hire charge bills amounting to Rs.1,52,74,203/- in respect of the aforesaid hired vehicles for the period from 2019 to March, 2024, along with the necessary documents, before the Respondent authorities and the same were duly received by the concerned Authorities. However, the said amount has not yet been paid to the Petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the bill amount of Rs.1,52,74,203/- has been duly admitted by the Respondent Authorities; however, despite such admission, the said amount has not been released. In addition thereto, the learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner had also submitted several representations before the Respondent Authorities seeking release of the aforesaid bill amount, however the said amount is still pending, for which the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by Respondent No. 5. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that, out of the total amount of Rs.1,52,74,203/-, the Petitioner has already received an amount of Rs. 44,70,114/-. Accordingly, the outstanding liability presently stands at Rs.1,08,05,957/- instead of Rs.1,52,74,203/-. Paragraph Nos. 8 and 10 of the said affidavit-in- opposition being relevant for the purpose of the instant case are reproduced herein below:

“8. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph No.7 of the writ petition the deponent begs to state that the petitioner has claimed total outstanding dues of Rs. 1,52,74,203/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two Lakhs Seventy Four thousand Two hundred and Three) only payable for hiring of the vehicles. Considering the claim of huge outstanding dues, the matters need to be examined with the concerned available records as well as bills to ascertain the correctness.

The facts reveal are as follows.

(I) The examination of records reveal that petitioner has claimed a deficit amount of Rs. 1868/- against the claimed amount of Rs. 1,52,74,203/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two Lakhs Seventy Four thousand Two hundred and Three) only.

(II) The examination of the records as well as hire charges bills received from the petitioner, it is found that out of the total claim of Rs. 1,52,74,203/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two Lakhs Seventy Four thousand Two hundred and Three) only petitioner had received an amount of Rs. 44,70,114/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Seventy thousand One hundred and Fourteen) only.

(III) The rest bills amount