SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 892

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Fariduddin Ahmed S/o. Late Nimar Ali - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 2210 of 2025
Decided On : 20-05-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S. A. Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. S. R. Baruah, Government Advocate

When state authorities acknowledge an outstanding financial liability for services rendered, the court may invoke its constitutional jurisdiction to direct the timely disbursement of the admitted dues, ensuring that administrative inaction does not result in the deprivation of legitimate individual claims.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Inaction on the part of state authorities in settling service payments - Where respondent authorities admit liability for hire charges of a vehicle but fail to release the balance, the court is empowered to issue directions for timely payment to facilitate just and equitable resolution. (Paras 4, 6, 7 and 8).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner leased a vehicle to government authorities for service. Despite submission of hire bills for the period of service, the authorities failed to discharge the total outstanding liability. After multiple representations were ignored, the petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court to seek the release of the remaining amount.

Findings of Court:
The authorities acknowledged the total liability and the amount already paid, resulting in a specific balance due. The court directed the respondents to pay the admitted amount, accounting for statutory deductions, within a specified timeframe to ensure the discharge of admitted financial obligations.

Issues: Whether the court can exercise jurisdiction to compel administrative authorities to pay outstanding dues when the liability is acknowledged by the state, and what the appropriate timeframe for such disbursement should be.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the state authorities unequivocally admit to a debt regarding service charges, there is no justification for withholding payment, and the court may order disbursement within a fixed period to uphold the rule of law and prevent administrative inaction.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for payment.

Table of Content
1. factual background and claims regarding non-payment of vehicle hire charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. judicial assessment of undisputed liability and calculated arrears owed. (Para 6 , 7)
3. mandatory direction for settlement of outstanding contractual debts. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. S. A. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. R. Baruah, 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 case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner is the owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-02/U-6082 (Tata Sumo Gold EX CR4 B), which was hired by the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Hojai, in the month of May, 2019, and has continued to run on hire under the said office till date.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had submitted hire charge bills amounting to th Rs.23,60,675/- for the period from May, 2019 to 28 February, 2025. However, the Respondent Authorities, more particularly the Respondent No.4 had disbursed only a part payment of Rs.2,28,000/- and the remaining outstanding amount has not been paid to the Petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner had submitted various representations before the Respondent Authorities seeking release of the remaining amount; however, the same still remains unpaid, for which the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. Mr. S. R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate during the course of the hearing has placed before this Court an instruction issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hojai, Assam, dated 13.05.2026. The said instruction is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”.

6. From a perusal of the said instruction, it appears that the Respondents have duly admitted that the Petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.25,31,476/- and out of which, a sum of Rs.3,45,824/- has already been paid to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the remaining balance due and payable stands at Rs.21,85,652/-. Paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the said instruction dated 13.05.2026 being relevant are reproduced herein under:

“3. That Sir, the aforementioned writ petition concerns a vehicle, a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.AS-02U-6082, registered in the name of Farid Uddin Ahmed. This vehicle was hired from May 1, 2019 to 30.09.2024.

4. That Sir, the total liability concerning the aforementioned vehicle amounts to Rs.25,31,476/- of this amount, Rs.3,45,824/- has already been paid to the petitioner. The remaining balance due is Rs.21,85,652/-.

5. That Sir, the Hire charge bills are sanctioned from APHQ. Therefore, all the Hire charge Bills are already sent to APHQ for sanction.

7. That Sir, the owner of the hired vehicle willingly submitted a letter offering a 2%negotiation on the total Hire Charge Bill for a one-time settlement. Furthermore, the resubmitted Hire Charge Bills have been sent to the Assam Police Headquarters for sanction.”

7. Taking into account the above, it therefore appears that the Petitioner at present is entitled to Rs.21,85,652/-.

8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:

(i) The Respondent Authorities are directed pay the Petitioner the admitted amount of Rs.21,85,652/- or such amount after statutory deductions.

(ii) The said exercise be completed within a period of 6 (six)months from the date a certified copy of the instant judgment is served upon the Respondent No.2 i.e. the Director General of Police, Guwahati.

(iii) Any amount paid during the pendency of the present proceedings would be set off at the time of disbursal of the amounts to the Petitioner.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top