State mandatory duty to disburse admitted hire charges for vehicles engaged for law and order purposes.

The petitioner is the registered owner of three Bolero vehicles (AS-25-BC-3934, AS-25-G-7213, and AS-25-CC-5036) which were hired by the Respondent authorities between 2023 and 2025 for maintaining law and order in Kamrup District

Following the release of the vehicles, the petitioner submitted bills totaling ₹22,39,855/-

Despite diligent pursuit by the petitioner, the amount remained unpaid, leading to the filing of this writ petition alleging a failure of the authorities to discharge their legal duties

The Respondent No. 6 filed an affidavit-in-opposition admitting the full liability of ₹22,39,855/- and stated that a proposal for sanctioning the fund had been submitted to the Assam Police Headquarters on January 28, 2026

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the disbursement of the admitted outstanding dues for the hiring of his vehicles by the State Respondents

2. Whether the Court should direct a specific timeline for the payment of the admitted liability

The Court applied the principle of State liability and the doctrine of "admitted dues" under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The ruling is based on the legal obligation of the State to fulfill its contractual and statutory liabilities, particularly when the debt is explicitly admitted in an affidavit filed by an authorized officer of the State government

The court also exercised its discretionary power to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a public authority to perform a duty that is not discretionary but mandatory once the liability is established

The Court analyzed the Respondent's affidavit-in-opposition, which provided a detailed breakdown of the vehicle registration numbers, duration of use, and the specific amounts payable for each period

The Court noted that the Respondents did not contest the claim but rather confirmed the exact amount of ₹22,39,855/- as being owed to the petitioner

The analysis centered on the fact that while the Respondents acknowledged the debt and claimed to have initiated the fund sanctioning process via Memo No. KMP/MT/Hire-Veh/2026/729, the lack of actual disbursement constituted a delay that prejudiced the petitioner

Consequently, the Court found no legal impediment to granting relief, as the liability was no longer a disputed question of fact but an admitted obligation

It disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Respondents to pay the said amount within a period of six months from the date of service of a certified copy of the order upon the Director General of Police, Assam (Respondent No. 3)