Waj Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010216132025

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:16653

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/5689/2025

¶6

WAJ UDDIN AHMED

¶7

S/O- LATE HARAN SEIKH, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL.- KABAITARI (PART-IV), P.O. AND P.S. JOGIGHOPA, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILL.- PASONIA (PART-II), P.O. PASONIA, P.S. JOGIGHOPA, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

¶11

2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM

¶12

3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GOALPARA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM

¶13

4:THE TREASURY OFFICER GOALPARA DISTRICT TREASURY ASSAM.

¶14

5:SUKUMAR BARMAN S/O.- LATE BISTURAM BARMAN VILLAGE- PASONIA PAHAR P.O. PASONIA P.S. JOGIGHOPA DIST.- BONGAIGAON

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

ASSAM PIN-783382

¶17

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. NK Kalita

¶18

Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. U Das,

¶19

Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate

¶20

B E F O R E

¶21

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶22

ORDER

¶23

03.12.2025

¶24

Heard Mr. NK Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U Das, the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam.

¶25

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in releasing the outstanding bill amounting to Rs.9,65,369/- to which the petitioner is entitled to on account of vehicle requisition charges along with the wages of the driver.

¶26

The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of car-hiring. He purchased a used Tata Sumo Victa bearing Registration No.AS-01/AL-1668 on 28.03.2017 from one Sukumar Barman. It is the case of the petitioner that when the process for transfer of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner was going on, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara had requisitioned the vehicle from the petitioner vide letter dated

¶27

17.07.2018 issued in the name of the original owner since the Registration

¶28

Page No.# 3/5

¶29

Certificate remained in the name of the original seller. The respondent authorities hired the vehicle of the petitioner from 17.07.2018 to 12.10.2020 for official use and thereafter on 12.10.2020 the vehicle was released. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the total bill along with the original hiring orders before the authorities as per the prescribed rate fixed for hire-charge amounting to Rs.12,51,107/-. However, out of the said amount Rs.2,85,738/- has been paid to the petitioner, but the remaining balanced amount of Rs.9,65,369/- still remains to be paid to the petitioner.

¶30

An affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.5, who is the original owner of the vehicle in question that he has no objection if the amount due is paid to the petitioner.

¶31

The respondent No.3 being the Senior Superintendent of Police, Goalpara had filed an affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the vehicle was taken on hire, however, there is no mention as to what is the actual amount due to be paid to the petitioner. However, at paragraph 11 of the said affidavit, it has been submitted that the bills which were submitted by the petitioner have been duly forwarded to the District Commissioner, Goalpara.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been pursuing the matter delinquently with the respondents, but the respondent authorities have not shown any interest in making the payment of the outstanding dues to the petitioner for which the petitioner is facing hardship. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

¶33

Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submitted that there is no denial to the fact that the vehicle in question was hired by the

¶34

Page No.# 4/5

¶35

respondent authorities during the period from 17.07.2018 to 31.07.2020. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that the entitlement of the petitioner would depend upon further verification to be carried out by the respondent authorities.

¶36

Upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner had given the vehicle on hire, the petitioner would be entitled to the amount. However, for the same, verification on the part of the respondent authorities would be required.

¶37

This Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:-

¶38

i) The respondent authorities shall verify as to whether the petitioner had given the vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-01/AL-1668 to the respondent authorities for the period from 17.07.2018 to 12.10.2020 for official use.

¶39

ii). The respondent authorities shall verify as to whether the petitioner had submitted the requisite documents which are required for the purpose of releasing the outstanding dues as claimed by the petitioner.

¶40

iii) The respondent authorities shall also verify the entitlement of the petitioner to the outstanding dues, and if upon verification in the manner stated above, it is found that the petitioner is entitled to any such amount, the respondent authorities shall pay the same to the petitioner.

¶41

iv) The above exercise be completed within a period of 6 (six) months from the date a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the respondent No.2, i.e. the District Commissioner, Goalpara.

¶42

Page No.# 5/5

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Waj Uddin Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waj Uddin Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bokajan Cement Corporation Employees Union Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

M/S Cadila Prarmaceuticals Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs the Central Board of Trustees and 3 Ors.

Ruhit Kanti Roy Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Joynuddin Sheikh Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Sarphina Yasmin and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.