Allowed

Rajesh Dutta v. the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 May 2023WP(C)/1029/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the respondents admitted liability to pay the petitioner Rs. 1,23,71,274/- for vehicle hiring charges. The Court directed the respondents to make the payment within three months of receiving a certified copy of the Order.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay the admitted amount of Rs. 1,23,71,274/- to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Order.

Rajesh Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 10… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010028002021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1029/2021

¶5

RAJESH DUTTA

¶6

S/O LT. SUBODH KUMAR DUTTA, R/O SANTINAGAR, WARD NO. 3, P.O. KOKRAJHAR, P.S. KOKRAJHAR, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, (BTAD), ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6

¶9

2:THE BOROLAND TERRITORIAL AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. BTAD KOKRAJHAR ASSAM.

¶11

3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶12

HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6

¶13

4:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶14

STATE HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6

¶15

5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

¶16

ASSAM

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

B.K. KAKATY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 6:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN) ASSAM B.K. KAKOTY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 7:THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BTAD KOKRAJHAR ASSAM. 8:THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN) ASSAM B.K. KAKOTY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 9:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOKRAJHAR ASSAM. 10:THE DIST. MAGISTRATE CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOKRAJHAR (LAW AND ORDER) DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM. 11:THE MOTOR TRANSPORT OFFICER (M.T.O.) KOKRAJHAR ASSAM

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶21

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

Page No.# 3/4

ORDER

12.05.2023

Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner is to be paid the hiring charges of the petitioner’s vehicles by the respondents, amounting to Rs. 1,42,73,814/-.

¶26

Mr. R. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 10 submits that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,23,71,274/- which is the admitted amount payable to the petitioner. He accordingly prays for time to make the payment.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶28

A perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 9 clearly shows that the respondents have admitted that they are liable to pay Rs. 1,23,71,274/to the petitioner, out of the amount of Rs. 1,42,73,814/- claimed by the petitioner.

¶29

Paragraph No. 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 9, who is the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar is to the following effect:-

¶30

“5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition; the deponent begs to state that the Competent Authority had hired the vehicles from the above petitioner for the use of this respondent for the interest of Public Service and maintaining the law and order situation. This respondent has no authority to sanction the hire charge bills and accordingly all the hire charges bills had been forwarded to the Assam Police Head Quarters in different occasions vide Memos for according sanction and release of fund for total admissible amount of Rs.1, 23, 71,274 (Rupees one crore twenty three lakhs seventy one thousand two hundred seventy four) only as because the petitioner had received a part payment of the rest of the amount as he claimed on different occasion.”

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

In view of the admission made by the respondents counsel that the respondents are liable to pay Rs. 1,23,71,274/- to the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 10 are directed to pay the admitted amount to the petitioner, within a period of

¶33

3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

¶34

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Rajesh Dutta v. the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Dutta v. the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tolaram Bafna Artificial Limb and Caliper Centre Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S Marshall Construction, Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Sumcon Infraventures LLP Vs the Union of India and 10 Ors.

Payal Agarwal Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Maina Agarwal Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Moina Begum and 19 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.