Allowed

Madhu Karmakar v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Sept 2026WP(C)/5657/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directions for payment of outstanding hiring charges for two vehicles used by respondent authorities. Court directed release of admitted dues of Rs. 40,43,514/- within six months, subject to verification of a prior payment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs. 40,43,514/- within six months, subject to deduction of Rs. 1,56,538/- if found already paid.

Madhu Karmakar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010211512025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/5657/2025

¶6

MADHU KARMAKAR

¶7

SON OF LATE PARESH CH. KARMAKAR, RESIDENT OF SOUTH BAZAR ROAD, WARD NO. 6, KOKRAJHAR, P.O. KOKRAJHAR, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, BTR, ASSAM, PIN-783370.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006.

¶11

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781006.

¶12

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM PIN- 783370.

¶13

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOKRAJHAR KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM PIN- 783370.

¶14

Page No.# 2/6

¶15

5:MOTOR TRANSPORT OFFICER (MTO) OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI PIN- 781007.

¶16

6:MOTOR TRANSPORT OFFICER (MTO) POLICE RESERVE KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B J MUKHERJEE, MS R SAHA

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 14-09-2026

¶23

Heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Chetia, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6. None appears for the respondent No. 2.

¶24

The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to clear his contractual dues amounting to Rs. 40,63,108/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Sixty Three Thousand One Hundred Eight), in lieu of hiring of his vehicles.

¶25

As projected, in the writ petition, the petitioner is the registered owner of two vehicles bearing No. AS-01BL-3624 and AS-16G-1422 (TATA Sumo Gold). The respondents had taken the vehicle bearing No. AS-01BL-3624 along with driver, on hire basis, for

¶26

Page No.# 3/6

¶27

maintenance of law & order. The vehicle was so taken by the MTO, Police Reserve, Kokrajhar. The said vehicle was hired for the period 01-03-2016 to 31-05-2016. The vehicle continued to be utilised on hiring basis, by the respondents till 30-11-2018.

¶28

The other vehicle of the petitioner, i.e. AS-16G-1422, along with the driver was taken on hire, by the MTO, Police Reserve, Kokrajhar, w.e.f. 01-12-2018. The said vehicle was utilized by the authorities till 25-08-2024. The petitioner contends that he had raised monthly bills in connection with the hiring of the said two vehicles. The amounts involved, however, were not paid and accordingly, an amount of Rs. 11,93,160/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Ninety Three Thousand One Hundred Sixty), accrued, as hiring charges, against the hiring of vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01BL-3624.

¶29

With regard to the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-16G-1422, an amount of Rs. 28,69,948/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Eight) was due to the petitioner, as hiring charges. Accordingly, for the hiring of the said two vehicles of the petitioner, a total amount of Rs. 40,63,108/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Sixty Three Thousand One Hundred Eight), was due to him as hiring charges. The said amount not being released to the petitioner, he has instituted the present writ petition.

¶30

Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above facts and has submitted that the hiring of the petitioner’s vehicles, not being disputed and there being no dispute with regard to the rate at which the petitioner had raised his monthly bills for hiring charges, against the said two vehicles, the respondent authorities are required to be directed to release the admitted hiring charges to the petitioner against the said two vehicles along with due interest, thereon.

¶31

Page No.# 4/6

¶32

Mr. M. Chetia, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondents has submitted that the hiring of the said two vehicles of the petitioner by the respondents is admitted along with the period for which the same was so hired. The petitioner has submitted that against the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01BL-3624, for the period w.e.f. 01-03-2016 till 30-11-2018, an amount of Rs. 11,93,160/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Ninety Three Thousand One Hundred Sixty), is due to the petitioner as hiring charges. He further submits that against the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-16G-1422, for the period w.e.f. 01-12-2018 to 25-08-2024, an amount of Rs. 28,69,948/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Eight), is due to the petitioner, as hiring charges. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 40,63,108/-, excluding GST charges, as hiring charges for the vehicles so taken by the respondents from him on hire basis. Mr. Chetia has, however, submits that the petitioner had already received an amount of Rs. 1,56,538/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight) including GST, vide a sanction order dated 16-02-2018. Mr. Chetia submits that in view of a financial constraint occasioning, the bills of the petitioner could not be released to him.

¶33

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

¶34

The hiring of the two vehicles of the petitioner, noticed, hereinabove, is not in dispute. The respondents have also not disputed the monthly hiring charges claimed by the petitioner against the said two vehicles as well as the period for which the vehicles were so taken on hire by the respondent authorities.

¶35

Page No.# 5/6

¶36

In view of the fact that the contractual dues, claimed by the petitioner, being admitted to by the respondent authorities, hereinabove, this Court would now be required to direct the respondent authorities to release to the petitioner his admitted contractual dues against the bills raised by the petitioner on account of hiring of his two vehicles noticed, hereinabove. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 40,43,514/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred Fourteen), as admitted, to the petitioner, within the period of 06 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶37

Having drawn the said conclusions, there being a further contention raised by the respondents in their affidavit that the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 1,56,538/(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight), on 16-02-2018, the respondent authorities shall verify the same and in the event the amount of Rs. 1,56,538/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight), is now included in the total claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 40,43,514/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred Fourteen), admitted to by the respondents, while releasing admitted amount, the amount of Rs. 1,56,538/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight), be deducted, therefrom. In the event it is found that the amount of Rs. 1,56,538/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight), is not included in the admitted amount of Rs. 40,43,514/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred Fourteen), claimed by the petitioner, the petitioner shall be released the total amount, within the timeframe, prescribed, hereinabove, by this Court.

¶38

Page No.# 6/6

¶39

With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands

¶40

disposed of.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Madhu Karmakar v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Karmakar v. the State of Assam and 5 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