Allowed

Maina Agarwal v. the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 May 2023WP(C)/199/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner claimed unpaid vehicle hiring charges admitted by the Superintendent of Police. The Court directed the respondents to pay Rs. 14,77,722/- within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs. 14,77,722/- to the petitioner within three months of receipt of certified copy of order.

Maina Agarwal Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010003482021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/199/2021

¶5

MAINA AGARWAL

¶6

W/O- BAJRANG AGARWAL, R/O- VILL- FAKIRAGRAM, P.O. FAKIRAGRAM, P.S. FAKIRAGRAM, DIST.- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶9

2:THE BOROLAND TERRITORIAL AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. BTAD KOKRAJHAR ASSAM

¶10

3:THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6

¶11

4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM STATE HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM B.K.KAKATY ROAD ULUBARI GHY-7

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

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

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

12.05.2023

¶19

Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the

¶20

hiring charges of the petitioner’s vehicles amounting to Rs. 14,77,722/- have not been

¶21

paid by the State respondents till date, even though the same has been admitted by

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

them in paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Superintendent of

¶24

Police, Kokrajhar, Assam (respondent No. 9), which was filed in the Registry of this Court on 16.03.2021.

¶25

Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 10 and Mr. S.R. Rabha, learned counsel for the BTC submit that as the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 9 clearly admits that the petitioner has to be paid Rs. 14,77,722/-, some time may

¶26

be provided to the respondents to pay the same.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶28

Paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar on 16.03.2021 states as follows:-

¶29

“4. That with regard the statements made in paragraphs 3 to 7 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that the Competent Authority had hired the Vehicles from the petitioner for the use of the respondent for the interest of public service and maintaining the law and order situation. The Respondent has no authority to sanction the hire charge bills and accordingly proposals of all the hire charges bills have been forwarded to the Assam Police Head Quarter in different occasions vide Memo Nos.KJR/E/Hire charge/201920/3934 dated 22.09.2019, KJR/E/Hire charge/ 2019-20/3934 dated 24.07.2019, KJR/E/Hire charge/2018-19/5941 dated 20.12.2018, KJR/E/Hire charge/2018/4207 dated 15.10.2018, KJR/E/Hire charge/2018/46 dated 27.09.2018 for according sanction and release of fund for total admissible amount of Rs.14,77,722.00 (Rupees fourteen lacs seventy seven thousand seven hundred twenty two).

¶30

It is pertinent to mention that from time to time the Respondent authority released the bills of the hire charge and wages of Drivers/Handymen of the vehicles requisitioned/hired for use of side forces to maintain law & order duties in the District of Kokrajhar vide memo Nos. S/XIV/2015/33 dated 15.02.2018, S/XIV-80/RV/2017/11 dated 15.02.2018, S/XIV-80/RV/2017/10 dated 16.02.2018, S/XIV-112/RV/2019/4 dated 24.03.2020.”

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

In view of the outstanding liability of the respondents towards the petitioner, amounting to Rs. 14,77,722/-, has been admitted, the respondents are directed to pay the said amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

¶33

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Maina Agarwal v. the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maina Agarwal 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.

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

Rajesh Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.