Government authorities have a legal obligation to verify and settle payment claims for services like vehicle requisitioning promptly, once the services are shown to have been commissioned and the necessary documentation has been submitted by the claimant.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) :

Heard Mr. A. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of all the Respondents.

2. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities in not making payment of the amount to which the Petitioner is entitled to.

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

4. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner is the owner of vehicles bearing Registration Nos. AS-01-EL-4948 (Scorpio), AS-01-EN-5190 (Innova) and AS-14-G-2307 (Tata Sumo), which were hired by the Respondents from 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2024 at different intervals. The rates for the hired vehicles were fixed by the Respondent Authorities in terms of the Notification dated 06.02.2014 issued by the Transport Department, Government of Assam.

5. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 2 maintains daily records in the form of car diaries and log books in respect of each vehicle, and based on such records, the Respondent No. 2, through the Motor Transport Officer under the Assam Police Commissionerate, generates draft hire charge bills for the period during which the vehicles were in use. The said draft hire charge bills were shared with the Petitioner for verification and signature, and upon such verification, the Petitioner re-submitted the bills before the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No.2 had admittedly generated hire charge bills amounting to Rs.51,48,673/-; however, the said amount has not been released to the Petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner has been repeatedly approaching the Respondent Authorities for payment of the pending dues, but they have deliberately failed to release the same without any justification. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents, submitted that there is no denial of the fact that the aforesaid vehicles were requisitioned by the Respondents. He, however, submitted that the entitlement of the Petitioner would depend upon verification to be carried out by the Respondent Authorities.

8. Upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that, if the Respondents had requisitioned the aforesaid vehicles for the period from 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2024, the Petitioner would be entitled to the hire charges. However, verification by the Respondent Authorities would be required for the same.

9. This Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:-

(i) The Respondent Authorities shall verify as to whether the said vehicles were requisitioned by the Respondent Authorities.

(ii) The Respondent Authorities shall also verify as to whether the Petitioner had submitted the requisite documents which are required for the purpose of releasing the amount due as claimed by the Petitioner.

(iii) The Respondent Authorities shall also verify the entitlement of the Petitioner to the dues, and if upon verification in the manner stated above, it is found that the Petitioner is entitled to any such amount, the Respondent Authorities shall pay the same to the Petitioner.

(iv) The above exercise be completed within a period of 6 (six) months from the date a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the Respondent