Petitioner claimed unpaid vehicle hiring charges from Assam Government. Respondents admitted liability based on precedent. Court directed government to verify bills and pay within three months.
Respondents directed to verify bills and pay admitted amount of Rs. 11,07,031/- within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010003432021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/389/2021
PAYAL AGARWAL
D/O- BAJRANG AGARWAL, R/O- VILL- FAKIRAGRAM, P.O. FAKIRAGRAM, P.S. FAKIRAGRAM, DIST.- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE BOROLAND TERRITORIAL AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. BTAD KOKRAJHAR ASSAM
3:THE ADDL. CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 4:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. 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
Page No.# 2/4
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
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
12.05.2023
Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-19-F-5222, which was
Page No.# 3/4
hired by the respondents on different dates between the years 2018-2020. Though the petitioner submitter her bills amounting to Rs. 11,07,031/-, no payment has been made to the petitioner till date.
Page No.# 4/4
Naseem Bano v. State of U.P , reported in 1993 Supp (4) 46 . Accordingly, the respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 10 are directed to examine the bills of the petitioner, for hiring charges of the vehicle and thereafter pay the admitted amount to the petitioner. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether respondents are directed to verify bills and pay admitted hiring charges of Rs. 11,07,031/- granted to petitioner.
Which authority (hiring government vs BTC) is responsible for payment of hiring charges disputed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Naseem Bano v. State of U.PApplied¶25
Naseem Bano v. State of U.P, 1993 Supp (4) 46
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PAYAL AGARWAL
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
