CHANDAN DEY AND 2 ORS. v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS.
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2020-01-31. CHANDAN DEY AND 2 ORS. v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/4 GAHC010308572019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C) 9358/2019 1:CHANDAN DEY AND 2 ORS. S/O LT. CHUNNI LAL DEY R/O KOKRAJHAR BAZAR WARD NO. 6 P. O. AND P. S. KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 2: PARNA DEY D/O SRI CHANDAN DEY R/O KOKRAJHAR BAZAR WARD NO. 6 P. O. AND P. S. KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 3: MITU DEY D/O SRI CHANDAN DEY R/O KOKRAJHAR BAZAR WARD NO. 6 P. O. AND P. S. KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM STATE HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 2:THE BOROLAND TERRITORIAL AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BTAD KOKRAJHAR ASSAM Page No. # 2/4 3:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM B. K.
KAKATY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7 6:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN. ) ASSAM B. K. KAKATY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7 7:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BTAD KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 8:THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN. ) ASSAM B. K. KAKATY ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7 9:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 10:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOKRAJHAR (LAW AND ORDER) DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 11:THE MOTOR TRANSPORT OFFICER (M. T. O. ) KOKRAJHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : GA Page No. # 3/4 ASSAM BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA 31. 01. 2020 Heard Mr. J I Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M D Bora, learned State counsel and Ms. P Pathak ,learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. The petitioners are the owners of various medium size vehicles.
The Superintendent of police, Kokrajhar for the purpose of maintenance of law and order and other public services hired various vehicles from the petitioners for the period of 2014 to 2018. The said vehicles were subsequently released on various dates as against which the petitioners claimed and as per the claim in this writ petition the petitioners are shown to be entitled a total amount of Rs. 1,15,21,379/-. It is the contention of Mr. Barbhuiya that though the said bills were submitted, however, the same has not been cleared nor there are any mover on the part of the respondents more specifically the respondent No. 9 in order to disburse the said amount. The respondent No. 9 filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been stated that as against the claim made by the petitioner some amount had already been paid. The specific stands are reproduced hereinbelow: “5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 5 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that on 31. 07.
2016, 31. 10. 2016 and 31. 10. 2016 hired charges amounting to Rs. (1,56,538 X 3)= 4,69,614/- (Rupees four lakh sixty nine thousand six hundred fourteen) only was paid to the petitioner No. 1 for Vehicle Nos. As-16A/ 3953 and AS-16D/0304, but the petitioner willfully avoided it in the writ petition. In this respect supporting documents are enclosed herewith. Statement showing the exact amount of hire charges admissible to the petitioner is also attached herewith. 6. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 6 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that the amounts mentioned in this paragraph is not true. Part Page No. # 4/4 payment was made by this respondents on 31. 07. 2016, 31. 10. 2016 and 31. 10. 2016 respectively amounting to Rs. 4,69,614/- (Rupees four lakh sixty nine thousand six hundred fourteen) only. 8.
That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the deponent states that the respondent has no any authority for sanction of hire charge bills except the disbursement of the hire charges. The hire charge bills have already been sent to Assam Police Head Quarter for sanction. ” From the stand taken by the respondent No. 9 one thing is clear that the hire charge bills were already sent to the Assam Police Head Quarter for sanction. As the officials of Assam Police Head Quarter are made parties in this writ petition accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents more specifically the respondent No. 9 and other officials placed at Assam Police Head Quarter to consider the claim of the petitioners after verifying the amount already released and the amount left to be disbursed to the petitioners.
The said exercise shall be initiated on a fresh representation to be submitted by the present petitioners along with a copy of this order including a copy of this writ petition. From the date of submission, the respondents shall made an endeavor to disburse the amount within a period of outer limit of 3 (three) months from the date of submission of the representation. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: Gauhati High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.