THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Amin Ansari S/o Gul Mohammad Ansari - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No.1443 of 2026
Decided On : 27-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for claim of outstanding hire charges. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. admission of liability by respondent authorities. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. judicial mandate for payment of admitted contractual dues. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
The instant writ petition is filed by the Petitioner challenging the non-payment of the admitted amount of Rs.12,39,754/- for hiring the vehicle of the Petitioner by the Respondent Authorities.
2. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner is the registered owner of a Mahindra Balero bearing Registration No.AS- 31B-3152. The said vehicle of the Petitioner was taken on hire from time to time by the Respondent No.6 on 18.05.2022 with an assurance to make payment of average of Rs.1,800/- per day excluding driver’s allowances for deploying it in law and order duty etc. The Petitioner has submitted a bill for the period from 18.05.2022 to 30.09.2025 for an amount of Rs.14,24,278/-. Out of the said amount, only an amount of Rs.1,84,524/- has been disbursed to the Petitioner till date and an amount of Rs.12,39,754/- has remained outstanding till date. It is stated that though the Respondent No.6 had duly admitted the bill amount, however the said amount has not been disbursed to him 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.12,39,754/- 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. R. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has placed before this Court a communication dated 24.04.2026 issued by the Respondent No.6 which is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. From a perusal of the said communication, it is seen that the Respondent Authorities have duly admitted their liability of an amount of Rs.12,39,754/-. The details can be seen in paragraph No.5 of the said communication.
5. Upon perusal of the materials on record, and more particularly the communication dated 24.04.2026, it would be seen that the Respondents therefore admit that the Petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.12,39,754/-. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following observations and directions:-
i) The Petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.12,39,754/- as admitted by the Respondents.
ii) The said amount of Rs.12,39,754/- 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 Nos.3 & 6, i.e. the Director General of Police, Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati and the Superintendent of Police, Hojai, Assam respectively.
Government authorities must ensure timely payment of acknowledged financial dues to prevent undue hardship to petitioners.
Government authorities must comply with contractual obligations by ensuring timely payment for services rendered, preventing undue hardship on service providers.
Petitioner's claim for dues upheld; respondents must pay admitted amount and verify remaining claims within specified time.
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.
Once a government authority admits a liability for services rendered, it must fulfill the payment obligation promptly, ensuring good faith in contractual dealings.
Public authorities have a duty to ensure timely payment of admitted liabilities, and delays without valid justification can prejudice claimants.
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....
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....
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.