State is liable to pay admitted outstanding hire charges for requisitioned vehicles within a stipulated period.

The Petitioner, a vehicle-hire business owner, provided a Maruti Gypsy (Reg. No. AS-01-DR-4194) to the Respondent authorities for Government use during various periods between 2022 and 2024

The hire charges were fixed as per a Government Notification dated 06.02.2014

While the Petitioner claimed an outstanding amount of ₹8,40,879/-, the Respondents failed to disburse the payment despite repeated follow-ups

During the proceedings, the Respondents (via a communication dated 16.12.2025) admitted a liability of ₹7,53,036/-, asserting that the Petitioner had over-calculated his claim by ₹87,843/-

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the recovery of admitted outstanding hire charges for the vehicle utilized by the State Respondents

2. Whether the Court should direct a time-bound disbursement of the admitted amount

The Court applied the principle of State liability regarding contractual/statutory obligations for services rendered.

It relied on the administrative duty of the State to discharge admitted liabilities without causing undue hardship to citizens.

Reference was made to the Transport Department Notification dated 06.02.2014, which governs the rate of hire charges for private vehicles requisitioned or hired for Government duties.

The Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the utilization of the Petitioner’s vehicle for the specified periods between 2022 and 2024

While the Petitioner’s claim was slightly higher, the Respondents submitted a formal communication (marked as "X") through the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime), Guwahati, which explicitly admitted a total liability of ₹7,53,036/- spread across eight specific bills

The Court observed that proposals for sanction and allotment of funds had already been forwarded to the Assam Police Headquarters (Respondent No. 3), but the payment remained pending due to administrative delays at the Government level

Consequently, the Court found that the Petitioner’s right to receive the admitted payment was established and that the State’s failure to pay was causing "prejudice" and "hardship"

The Court directed Respondent No. 3 (Director General of Police, Assam) to ensure the payment of the said amount to the Petitioner within a period of six months from the date of service of the certified copy of the order