Disposed¶31

Dipmoni Bordoloi v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Feb 2026WP(C)/4935/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court WP(C)/4935/2025, order dated 11/02/2026, Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair. Vehicle-hire contractual dues: petitioner-vehicle-owner versus State of Assam, DGP, Addl. DGP (Admin) and Commissioner of Police, Kamrup Metro; Mahindra Scorpio (requisitioned 22.10.2021) and Mahindra Thar CRDE (hired 01.01.2020). Claim of Rs.35,08,849/- capped at admitted dues of Rs.35,07,849/- after verification; respondents directed to pay admitted dues within 6 months; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent authorities to release the petitioner's admitted contractual dues of Rs.35,07,849/- within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶31

Dipmoni Bordoloi Vs the State of Assam and Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010187962025

2026:GAU-AS:1975

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4935/2025

¶6

DIPMONI BORDOLOI S/O- LATE CHANDRA KANTA BORDOLOI, R/O- H.NO- 5, MALIGAON, P.S- JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI-12, KAMRUP METRO

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT , DISPUR , GUWAHATI-06

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07 KAMRUP METRO

¶10

3:THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMIN) ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07 KAMRUP METRO

¶11

4:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KAMRUP METRO

¶12

ASSA

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Z H BORA, MR. S BORTHAKUR,MS. S KAKATI

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶18

ORDER

¶19

11/02/2026

¶20

Heard Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the State respondents.

¶21

2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for releasing to him an amount of Rs.35,08,849/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Nine), being the contractual dues receivable by him in lieu of hiring of his vehicles by the respondents.

¶22

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner is the owner of two vehicles, being Mahindra Scorpio S9 MH, bearing registration No. AS-01-EV-8268 and Mahindra Thar CRDE, bearing registration No. AS-25-T-7303. The respondent No. 4 had requisitioned the Mahindra Scorpio vehicle on hire basis for Law & Order duties by way of issuing an order dated 22.10.2021. Similarly, the other vehicle, being the Mahindra Thar CRDE was also taken on hire, on 01.01.2020 by the said respondent No. 4. The petitioner, for the periods the said vehicles were hired by the respondent, had submitted bills. The amount involved in the bill as submitted by the petitioner against hiring of his said two vehicles works out to Rs.35,08,849/(Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Nine). The said amount not being cleared to the petitioner, he had approached the respondent authorities, however, such approach not having evoked any response, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

4. Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the claims made by the petitioner has been admitted by the respondent authorities and accordingly, there exist no bar for releasing to the petitioner his admitted contractual dues.

¶25

5. Mr. N Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam, by referring to the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4 in the matter has submitted that the bills submitted by the petitioner were verified and on such verification, it was found that the petitioner is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.35,07,849/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Nine) and not Rs.35,08,849/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Nine), as claimed in the present writ petition.

¶26

6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents cannot be directed by this Court to pay an amount above the amount admitted by the petitioner in the present proceedings.

¶27

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶28

8. Although, the petitioner against the hiring of his said two vehicles had projected that an amount of Rs.35,08,849/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Nine) is receivable by him, the respondent authorities having admitted to an amount of Rs.35,07,849/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Nine), being the admitted contractual dues receivable by the petitioner against the hiring of the said two vehicles, this Court would not be in a position to direct the respondents to release to the petitioner an amount higher than Rs.35,07,849/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Nine).

¶29

9. In view of the contractual dues, being admitted by the petitioner to the extent indicated, hereinabove, the respondent authorities are directed to release to the petitioner his admitted contractual dues of Rs.35,07,849/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Nine) within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

10. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Dipmoni Bordoloi v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipmoni Bordoloi v. the State of Assam and 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

Sambhu Charan Barman Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

National Health Mission Employees Association, Assam and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sabitri Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ms Tharu and Sons Vs the Union of India

Pradip Borbora Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Tilottama Boro Rajbongshi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.