Gauhati High Court
Smti Pranati Debnath vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors on 13 July, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010273772025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/276/2026
SMTI PRANATI DEBNATH
W/O- RATAN CH. NATH DAS, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 3, BIDHANPALLY,
P.O. KOKRAJHAR, P.S. AND DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783370.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT
OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
STATE HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
B.K. KAKATY ROAD
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-7.
5:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN)
ASSAM
B.K. KAKOTY ROAD
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-7.
6:THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN)
ASSAM
B.K. KAKOTY ROAD
Page No.# 2/4
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-7.
7:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
8:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP METRO
(LAW AND ORDER)
DIST. KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
9:THE MOTOR TRANSPORT OFFICER (M.T.O)
KAMRUP METRO
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, MR. N ALI,MR A HOSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
13.07.2026
Heard Shri J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri M.
Chetia, learned State Counsel.Considering the subject matter involved and the stand
of the respondents in the affidavits, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at
the admission stage.
As per the facts projected, the petitioner is the registered owner of vehicles
bearing registration nos. AS-16-G-3637 (M/Thar), AS-16-F-5419 (Scorpio) and AS-16-
G-1025 (Bolero).The said vehicles were hired by the respondentsin the period 2021 to
2024 for which bills were raised amounting to Rs.33,80,376/- (Rupees Thirty Three
Lakh Eighty Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Six) only.However,the same were not
Page No.# 3/4
released and accordingly, the writ petition has been filed.
Shri Borbhuiya, the learned counsel has submitted that the amount involved is
legally entitled to by the petitioner and therefore, a direction be issued in this regard.
Shri Chetia, the learned State Counsel has however submitted that out of the
aforesaid amount, an amount of Rs.2,35,256/-(Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Five Thousand
Two Hundred Fifty Six) onlyhas already been paid to the petitioner. He has also
submitted that on verification, it has been found that presently an amount of
Rs.30,68,072/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Seventy Two) onlyis found
due.
On the issue of a claim of contractual bills to be entertained by a Writ Court, the
Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Tamsher Ali vs. State of Assam reported in 2008
(4) GLT 1 has endorsed the principles laid down in the earlier case of Jatin Pathak:
“i) All claims for payment of outstanding dues would be entertained for
consideration provided the same are admitted by the respective departments.
The admissions of liability shall have to be certified by the respective Chief
Engineer in respect of Works Departments and in respect of other departments
by the Head of the departments.
ii) All claims for payment of admitted outstanding dues would be entertained for
payment provided the claims are lodged before the competent authority within
a period of three years from the date of the payment becoming due.
iii) All claims for payment of admitted outstanding dues in respect of which the
contractors intend or have approached the Hon’ble Court, in such cases, the
contractors must approach the Hon’ble High Court within a period of 3 years
from the date of the payment becoming due. This view has been taken as the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. BhailalBhai and Ors.
reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 at Para 21 has observed that though provisions
of Limitation Act do not as such apply to proceedings under Article 226, the
period of Limitation prescribed by Limitation Act for instituting a civil action may
ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking
remedy under Article 226 can be measured. ”
In the instant case, it is seen that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the
respondent no. 7 on 15.06.2026, an admission has been made to the extent of an
Page No.# 4/4amount of Rs.30,68,072/-(Rupees Thirty Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Seventy Two)
only.For ready reference, the relevant pleadings are extracted herein below:
“(ii) Scrutiny of the bills further, reveals that petitioner in violation of the per
diem rate fixed by the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department has claimed per
diem rate as Rs.1450/- (Rupees One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty) only instead
of Rs.990/- (Rupees Nine Hundred Ninety) only. Accordingly, the remaining 19
(nineteen) No’s of bills were re-examined and corrected by deducting the
excess forwarded to the sanctioning authority to accord Financial Sanction of
Rs.30,68,072/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Seventy Two) only in
2 (two) proposals. As a result of the corrections in few bills an amount of
Rs.77,048/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand Forty Eight) only have been
deducted. Therefore, the petitioner should be entitled an amount of
Rs.30,68,072/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Seventy Two). The
details of the proposals showing bills are as follows:-
…”
Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled
to a direction for release of the contractual bills in accordance with the principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Full Bench which would require placing of the petitioner in the
chronological list as per seniority.Let such exercise be undertaken and completed
expeditiously and preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
