Bobby Kaur Hansepi Vs the State of Assam 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010231892024

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:10871

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/5865/2024

¶6

BOBBY KAUR HANSEPI W/O- LATE BARUA TIMUNG, R/O- H.NO-62, VOLTAS LANE, GANDHI BASTI, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781003

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, P.O-ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, GUWAHATI-781006

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07 KAMRUP METRO 3:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶10

For the petitioner : Mr. A. K. Gogoi, Advocate

¶11

For the respondents : Mr. M. Chetia, Govt. Advocate

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶15

Date of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of Judgment : 13.08.2025

¶16

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶17

The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the non-payment of the admitted amount of Rs.8,05,640/- for hiring the vehicle of the petitioner by the Respondent Authorities.

¶18

The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, namely, Maruti Eeco bearing registration No. AS-01-ES7984. The respondent No.3 took the aforesaid vehicles on hire basis on 05.03.2021; 01.01.2022; 01.07.2022; 01.01.2023; 01.10.2023; 01.12.2023; 01.01.2024 respectively and the vehicle is still in service. The petitioner accordingly submitted the bill before the respondent No.3 through the Office of the Motor Transport Officer, Police Reserve, Guwahati for making payment of Rs.8,05,640/- for the said period as hire charge. It is stated that even though the bills were duly admitted by the respondent No.3, however the said amount has not been disbursed to her till date.

¶19

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

¶20

Page No.# 3/5

¶21

interest in making the payment of the admitted amount of Rs.8,05,640/- due to the petitioner for which the petitioner is facing hardship. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Respondent Authorities have failed to discharge their duty in accordance with law and the same has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

¶22

Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate has placed before this Court an affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3. From a perusal of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it is seen that the Respondent Authorities have admitted their liability of an amount of Rs.8,05,640/- The details can be seen in paragraph No.4 of the said affidavit-in-opposition which being relevant is reproduced herein under:-

¶23

“ 4. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph No.4 of the writ petition, the answering deponent begs to state that the petitioner has made claim of Rs.8,05,640/only as outstanding hire charge in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, concerned records were checked and verified and found that petitioner has submitted 7 (seven) numbers of hire charge bills on various dates during the period from 05.03.2021 to 31.03.2024 amounting to Rs. 8,05,640/- as per the rate fixed by the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department. However, after completion of required formalities, 6 (six) No's of hire charge bills have been forwarded to the Assam Police Headquarter vide proposals No. 6790-6795 (RV) dated 05.03.2025 for according approval of sanction and allotment of the fund required to make payment to the petitioner.

¶24

The details of the bill showing proposals No is as follows:

¶25

PROPOSAL NO. 6790-6795 (RV) dated 05.03.2025

¶26

Sl. No.	Vehicle No.	Type	From	To	Amount in Rs.
1	AS-01-ES-7984	M/Ecco	01-01-2024	31-03-2024	1,10,128.00

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

2	AS-01-ES-7984	M/Ecco	01-01-2022	30-06-2022	1,82,538.00
3	AS-01-ES-7984	M/Ecco	01-07-2022	31-12-2022	1,85,564.00
4	AS-01-ES-7984	M/Ecco	05-03-2021	30-06-2021	1,19,004.00
5	AS-01-ES-7984	M/Ecco	01-12-2023	31-12-2023	37,516.00
6	AS-01-ES-7984	M/Ecco	01-01-2023	31-03-2023 Rs.	90,766.00 7,25,516.00

¶29

It is further stated that the verification process concerning the bill for the period from 01.10.2023 to 31.11.2023 amounting to Rs. 73,284/- is pending since there is an objection raised against the bill. However, it will be forwarded to the sanctioning authority as soon as the objection resolved.

¶30

The matter relating to the release of hire charges claim amount always depend on the approval of sanction as well as allotment of fund required from the Sanctioning Authority. However, the required sanction and allotment of fund against the above proposal is yet to be received. Once sanction as well as allotment of fund received, steps will be taken to credit the amount to the bank account of the petitioner maintained in the concerned bank.”

¶31

Upon perusal of the materials on record, and more particularly the paragraph quoted above, it would be seen that the Respondents therefore admit that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.8,05,640/-. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following observations and directions:-

¶32

i) The petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.8,05,640/- as admitted by the Respondents.

¶33

ii) The said amount of Rs.8,05,640/- be paid to the petitioner after making such statutory deductions, if so required 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 Director General of Police, Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati.

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

(iii) Any amount so paid during the pendency of the present writ petition towards the dues of the petitioner shall be set off while making payment to the petitioner.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Bobby Kaur Hansepi v. the State of Assam 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bobby Kaur Hansepi v. the State of Assam 2 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

Simplex Infrastructures Limited Vs Oil India Limited and 2 Ors.

Nalinaksha Sarma Vs the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Geetartha Pathak Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Jamanul Waris Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S Bhola Sah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Eusufa Sarkar Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.