Authorities must pay admitted vehicle-hire dues within six months, subject to statutory deductions.

The petitioner, the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No. AS-25-CC-5905, hired out his vehicle to the respondent authorities for law-and-order/public-service duties during the period from 1 January 2024 to 20 March 2024.

After the vehicle was released, the petitioner submitted bills claiming hire charges of ₹1,18,992, but the amount remained unpaid. He submitted a representation dated 20 March 2025 seeking payment, without receiving any effective response.

During the proceedings, the respondents produced an instruction dated 25 June 2026 stating that the claimed amount had been forwarded to Assam Police Headquarters for necessary sanction.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to receive the admitted outstanding hire charges of ₹1,18,992 for the use of his vehicle by the respondent authorities.

Whether the Court should direct the respondent authorities to disburse the admitted amount within a specified period.

The Court applied the principle that an admitted and undisputed monetary liability of State authorities arising from the use of a private vehicle for official purposes should be duly settled and paid.

In exercise of its writ jurisdiction, the Court may issue a mandamus directing public authorities to discharge such admitted dues within a reasonable time.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment; the direction was based principally on the respondents’ express admission of liability and the administrative record confirming that the payment proposal had been forwarded for sanction.

The respondents’ instruction dated 25 June 2026 expressly acknowledged the petitioner’s claim of ₹1,18,992 and confirmed that the amount had been forwarded to Assam Police Headquarters for necessary sanction.

On the basis of this admission, the Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the claimed amount.

Since the liability was admitted and the payment had not yet been made, the Court considered it appropriate to issue a positive direction requiring the authorities to complete the payment process rather than merely direct consideration of the petitioner’s representation.

The payment exercise was directed to be completed within six months from the date on which a certified copy of the judgment is served upon Respondent No. 3, the Director General of Police.

Any amount already paid during the pendency of the proceedings was to be adjusted against the amount payable.