Authorities must pay admitted vehicle-hire charges within six months of receiving the certified order.

The petitioner, registered owner of Maruti Omni Van No. AS-01-AU-9012, stated that his vehicle was requisitioned by the respondent authorities for transportation and law-and-order duties from 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2015 and again from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2016.

After release of the vehicle, he submitted hire-charge bills of Rs.1,82,539 and Rs.1,83,547, totalling Rs.3,66,086, but the amount remained unpaid.

During the writ proceedings, the respondents produced official communications admitting liability, subject to correction of an alleged excess claim of Rs.1,008, and stated that the actual payable amount was Rs.3,65,078; proposals for sanction had been forwarded to Assam Police Headquarters.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of the outstanding hire charges for the requisitioned vehicle when the respondent authorities admitted liability for a specified amount?

2. Whether the Court should direct the respondents to pay the admitted amount, subject to statutory deductions and adjustment of any payment already made?

The Court applied the principle that a writ court may issue an appropriate direction for payment where the respondent authorities have expressly admitted a legally payable monetary liability.

The Court relied on the respondents’ written admission and official calculation of the amount due, rather than adjudicating any disputed or unadmitted portion of the petitioner’s claim.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment; the payment was directed subject to applicable statutory deductions and adjustment of amounts already paid.

The petitioner claimed Rs.3,66,086 towards hire charges, while the respondents’ communication dated 22 January 2026 recorded that Rs.1,008 had been claimed in excess and that the actual liability was Rs.3,65,078.

The communication also showed that proposals for sanction of Rs.3,65,078 had been forwarded to the competent authority, thereby constituting an admission of liability by the respondents.

On the basis of this admission, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the admitted amount and directed payment within a fixed period, without granting the disputed excess claim.

Any amount already paid during the pendency of the writ petition was directed to be adjusted against the petitioner’s dues.