Facts of the Case

  • Petitioner’s Ownership and Agreement: The petitioner, Aruna Devi Agarwalla, is the registered owner of a commercial truck bearing Registration No. AS-25-B-9655. On January 1, 2015, the petitioner offered the aforementioned vehicle to the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, on a hire basis.
  • Continuous Service Utilization: The truck was accepted by the respondent authorities and has remained continuously in active service for the Guwahati Police Department from the date of agreement up to the date of filing the writ petition.
  • Commercial Terms: As per the agreed hiring terms between the parties, the respondent authorities were liable to pay a daily hire charge of ₹1,430/- (excluding GST at the rate of 5%). Additionally, the agreement mandated a driver allowance of ₹200/- per day and a handyman allowance of ₹150/- per day.
  • Submission of Bills and Default: In accordance with these terms, the petitioner raised and submitted regular commercial bills (annexed as Annexure 2 and 2A in the writ petition) before the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati. Despite the continuous usage of the vehicle, the respondent authorities failed to clear the outstanding amounts, leading to the accumulation of unpaid dues. Aggrieved by this persistent non-honoring of legitimate bills, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Issues Involved

  • Whether the respondent authorities (Guwahati Police) are legally obligated to verify and honor long-pending commercial bills raised for utilizing a private commercial vehicle on a hire basis.
  • Whether the failure of a state entity to process payments for services rendered constitutes arbitrary administrative inaction remediable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • Performance of Contractual Obligations: Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. S. Kataki, argued that the petitioner has completely fulfilled her part of the arrangement by keeping the truck at the disposal of the Guwahati Police since 2015.
  • Arbitrary Administrative Inaction: It was contended that the complete silence and non-action of the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, in processing the submitted bills (Annexures 2 and 2A) is highly arbitrary, unfair, and violative of the petitioner's right to livelihood and fair business practices.
  • Unjust Enrichment by the State: The petitioner argued that the State cannot enjoy the continuous fruits of a private citizen’s commercial asset while simultaneously withholding the agreed financial compensation, as it amounts to unjust enrichment.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • Need for Verification: Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State of Assam and its police authorities, did not explicitly deny the vehicle's utilization but submitted that the entire claim required a thorough factual verification.
  • Administrative Procedure: The respondents argued that before any public funds can be disbursed, the department must cross-verify internal logs, deployment records, and attendance sheets of the truck, driver, and handyman to ascertain the exact duration of active service and the precise calculation of dues.

Court Order / Findings

  • Disposal with Strict Directions: The Hon'ble Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, noting the limited and specific nature of the grievance, disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage itself by issuing a time-bound mandamus to the respondents.
  • Mandate to Verify: The High Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, to personally examine the bills submitted by the petitioner and meticulously verify from official department records whether the truck (No. AS-25-B-9655) was indeed taken and utilized on hire.
  • Consequence of Positive Verification: The Court ordered that if the verification process confirms the active service of the petitioner's vehicle, the Commissioner of Police must immediately pass an appropriate formal order for the release and payment of the pending hire charges.
  • Requirement of a Reasoned Order: In the event that the Commissioner finds the petitioner ineligible or detects any discrepancies in the claim, the Court strictly mandated that a properly detailed, reasoned order must be passed, and the same must be formally communicated to the petitioner.
  • Strict Timeline: The entire exercise of verification, adjudication, and passing of the order must be completed within a strict timeline of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of the High Court's order. If the decision is in favor of the petitioner, a clear timeline for the disbursement of the bills must also be specified in that order.

Important Clarification

  • Expedited Remedy for Commercial Outstandings: This ruling clarifies that while contractual disputes are usually relegated to civil courts, when a citizen's basic commercial claims are ignored by state organs without any valid rhyme or reason, the High Court can step in under Article 226 to direct timely administrative adjudication. It safeguards small commercial vendors against indefinite administrative delays.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Writ jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner for enforcement of fundamental/legal rights and seeking a mandamus against arbitrary non-payment of dues by administrative authorities.

Link to download the order - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783150989_803compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content.The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.