JUDGEMENT : The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the petitioner has been deprived of her legitimate dues towards rent for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2010 to 30.11.2015 in respect of her subject-property. 2. The facts, which are not in dispute, can be stated as follows :- 2.1. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 3 Kathas 16 Lessas [02B-03K-16L], covered by Dag no. 308 and K.P. Patta no. 10, located in village -Kalibari, Mouza – Mahabhoirab, in the district of Sonitpur [hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject-plot’, for short]. Within the subject-plot, there is a Bungalow, staff quarters, etc. [hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject-house’, for easy reference]. The subject-house and the subject-plot together are referred to hereinafter as ‘the subject-property’, for convenience. There are also several valuable trees within the boundaries of the subject-plot. 2.2. In the year 1995, the Special Superintendent of Police [B], Assam Arunachal Inter State Sector, Tezpur wrote to the petitioner vide his letter dated 01.09.1995 informing her that they would take the subject-house on rent for office-cum-residence for locating the newly created office of the Special Superintendent of Police [B], Assam Arunachal Inter State Sector, Tezpur. It was further informed that the valuation of the subject-plot and the subject-house were being done and a proposal for taking the same on rent would be sent to the Government with the valuation reports. It was also informed to the petitioner that an agreement would be effected between the petitioner and the State respondents when the proposal was accepted by the Government and the house was finally occupied. 2.3. The office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur assessed the valuations of the subject-plot and the subject-house separately in the meantime. The building value of the subject-house was worked out at Rs. 2,64,667/-and the land value for the subject-plot was worked out at Rs. 2,85,191/-. By so assessing the said building value and the land value, the office of the Deputy Commissioner had assessed the rent of the subject-property @ Rs. 3,437/-per month. The calculation sheet provided by the Deputy Commissioner reflected that the said rent was worked out as per the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 for rural areas. 2.4. By so assessing the said building value and the land value, the office of the Deputy Commissioner had assessed the rent of the subject-property @ Rs. 3,437/-per month. The calculation sheet provided by the Deputy Commissioner reflected that the said rent was worked out as per the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 for rural areas. 2.4. The office of the Special Superintendent of Police [B], Assam Arunachal Inter State Sector, Tezpur started its occupation of the subject-property on and from 04.10.1995. After a period of 5 [five] years, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur re-assessed the standard rent for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2000 to 03.10.2005 @ Rs. 4,667/-per month and for the period beyond 04.10.2005 @ Rs. 5,627/-per month. The fixation of such standard rents was certified by the office of the Deputy Commissioner in a certificate dated 05.09.2007. It was clarified therein that the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 were not applicable in respect of the subject-house as it is situated in a rural area. It was further clarified by the office of the Deputy Commissioner that the rent was fixed by keeping the principles laid down in the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 and they were reasonable rents. 2.5. The office of the Special Superintendent of Police [B], Assam Arunachal Inter State Sector, Tezpur continued to occupy the subject-property of the petitioner consisting of the subject-house and the subject-plot till 30.11.2015. There is no dispute with regard to the rent in respect of the subject-property for the periods [i] from 04.10.1995 to 03.10.2000; [ii] from 04.10.2000 to 03.10.2005; and [iii] from 04.10.2005 to 03.10.2010. Though the respondent authorities were not regular in paying the rent against the subject-property of the petitioner, the rents for the period from 01.10.2000 to 03.10.2005 @ Rs. 4,666/-per month and from 04.10.2005 to 20.09.2008 @ Rs. 5,627/-per month were paid in June, 2009. 3. The dispute had arisen in respect of the monthly rent of the subject-property for the period beyond 03.10.2010. The petitioner realizing that the zonal value of the subject-plot and the standard rent for the subject-house had increased manifold in the meantime, had submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur on 22.01.2011 with the request to enhance the rent in respect of the subject-property by taking into consideration the then prevailing zonal value/market value. The petitioner realizing that the zonal value of the subject-plot and the standard rent for the subject-house had increased manifold in the meantime, had submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur on 22.01.2011 with the request to enhance the rent in respect of the subject-property by taking into consideration the then prevailing zonal value/market value. The petitioner also submitted a copy of the representation for enhancement of rent to the Special Superintendent of Police [B], Assam Arunachal Inter State Sector, Tezpur w.e.f. 04.10.2010. On receipt of the said request, the Special Superintendent of Police [B], Assam Arunachal Inter State Sector, Tezpur [the respondent no. 5] wrote to the respondent no. 2 by his letter dated 08.04.2015 for the respondent no. 4’s needful action in the matter. The respondent no. 5 also wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur [the respondent no. 2] in reference to the request for enhancement of rent, requesting the respondent no. 2 to re-fix the rent for the period w.e.f. 04.10.2010 to 01.03.2015 by his letter dated 04.09.2015 as it was fixed for the last time on 05.09.2007. 3.1. The respondent no. 5 had, thereafter on 26.11.2015, informed the petitioner that the office of the respondent no. 5 would be shifted to a new accommodation located at Hazarapar under Lalmati Outpost on 30.11.2015 and the outstanding liabilities towards rent of the office of the Special Superintendent of Police [B], Assam Inter State Sector, Tezpur would be cleared within a short time. 3.2. The petitioner had, thereafter, made representations to the respondent authorities to re-fix the rent of the subject-property for the period w.e.f. 04.10.2010 to 30.11.2015. When no response was received in that regard, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition. 4. I have heard Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam for all the respondents. 5. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an octogenarian lady and the rents received in respect of the subject-property is the source of her livelihood. It is the case of the petitioner that the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur assessed the value of the land as per zonal valuation approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur for the subject-plot and issued a certificate dated 17.12.2015 whereby the valuation of the subject-plot was assessed at Rs. 69,00,000/-[Rs. 5,00,000/-per Katha]. It is the case of the petitioner that the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur assessed the value of the land as per zonal valuation approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur for the subject-plot and issued a certificate dated 17.12.2015 whereby the valuation of the subject-plot was assessed at Rs. 69,00,000/-[Rs. 5,00,000/-per Katha]. The Public Works Department, Assam [APWD], had also submitted a valuation report in respect of the subject-house at Rs. 12,07,663/-and the said information was provided to the Deputy Commissioner by a communication dated 27.05.2016. It was clarified that the rates were considered as per the norms of the Assam Public Works Department [APWD]. Based on the above two valuation reports, a certificate dated 03.02.2017 was issued by the respondent no. 3 whereby it was stated that the standard monthly rent against the subject-property of the petitioner was assessed at Rs. 50,673/-for the period w.e.f. 04.10.2010 to 03.10.2015. On the basis of the said certificate dated 03.02.2017, the petitioner wrote to the respondent no. 5 on 04.02.2017 informing him that the standard monthly rent against the subject-property had been assessed at Rs. 50,673/-for the period from 04.10.2010 and 30.11.2015. The respondent no. 5 was thereby, requested to make payment of the differential amount of Rs. 27,87,021/-after adjusting the monthly rent earlier paid @ Rs. 5,627/-. By submitting so, Mr. Deka has submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the differential amount towards monthly rent but the respondent authorities started taking a different stance thereafter, in order to deny the differential amount legitimately due to the petitioner. He has submitted that the respondent authorities have now taken a stand that it is against the subject-house alone for which the differential amount assessed by the Assam Public Works Department [APWD] can be paid and the differential amount assessed towards the subject-plot is not payable. According to him, such decision on the part of the respondent authorities is clearly arbitrary as the respondent authorities had earlier used to pay the monthly rent taking the entire subject-property including the subject-plot and the subject-house, into consideration. But, without any prior notice to the petitioner, they had decided to take into consideration only the subject-house for the purpose of fixation of monthly rent whereas during the period from 1995 to 2010, the standard rent was assessed against the entire subject-property. But, without any prior notice to the petitioner, they had decided to take into consideration only the subject-house for the purpose of fixation of monthly rent whereas during the period from 1995 to 2010, the standard rent was assessed against the entire subject-property. It is his submission that departure sought to be made by the respondent authorities thereby restricting the differential amount only to the subject-house is clearly arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable. 6. Per contra, Mr. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam has submitted that when a proposal was received at the Assam Police Headquarters from the respondent no. 5 regarding payment of the differential amount towards house rent amounting to Rs. 27,87,021/-@ Rs. 50,673/-per month for the period w.e.f. 04.10.2010 to 30.11.2015 on 01.07.2019, the matter was duly re-considered. It is his contention that the rents for the period from 04.10.1995 to 03.10.2000 @ Rs. 3,427/-per month; for the period from 01.10.2000 to 03.10.2005 @ Rs, 4,667/-per month; for the period from 04.10.2005 to 03.10.2010 @ Rs. 5,627/-per month; and for the period from 04.10.2010 to 30.11.2015 @ Rs. 5,627/-per month were paid. It is their further case that for the period from 04.10.2010 to 30.11.2015, the rent was paid @ Rs. 5,627/-due to non-receipt of rent fixation certificate from the respondent no. 2. After receipt of the assessment amount against the subject-property @ Rs. 50,673/-per month for the period from 04.10.2010 to 03.10.2015 from the respondent no. 2 vide his certificate dated 03.02.2017, the respondent no. 2 was requested to verify the re-fixation amount by a communication dated 07.03.2017. The respondent no. 2 by his communication dated 14.06.2019 informed the respondent no. 5 that the assessment of the standard rent against the subject-property @ Rs. 50,673/-per month was correct. Thereafter, the calculation statement prepared by the respondent no. 2 was collected and after receipt of the calculation statement from the respondent no. 2, the Assam Public Works Department [APWD] was requested to issue a rent fixation certificate on 11.08.2020. The Assam Public Works Department [APWD] through the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sonitpur Building Division had assessed the standard rent of the subject-house @ Rs. 18,173/-per month w.e.f. 03.10.2010. Upon receipt of the said rent fixation certificate, a proposal was prepared for making payment of the differential amount on that basis and finally on 22.12.2020, the differential amount of Rs. The Assam Public Works Department [APWD] through the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sonitpur Building Division had assessed the standard rent of the subject-house @ Rs. 18,173/-per month w.e.f. 03.10.2010. Upon receipt of the said rent fixation certificate, a proposal was prepared for making payment of the differential amount on that basis and finally on 22.12.2020, the differential amount of Rs. 7,77,043/-for the period from 03.10.2010 to 30.11.2015 was paid to the petitioner. 6.1. Referring to Rule 514 of the Assam Financial Rules, Mr. Nath has contended that the responsibility to assess the rent for public building is ordinarily vested with the Assam Public Works Department [APWD] and as such, the assessment of the standard rent made by the respondent no. 2 is not to be taken into consideration. Mr. Nath has, thus, contended that no further payment against the subject-property or the subject-plot of the petitioner is admissible. It is his further contention that the writ petition involves money claim and it also involves determination of disputed questions of fact and as such, the writ jurisdiction of the Court may not be exercised in such a matter. Mr. Nath has also submitted that the petitioner had raised the issue of enhancement only in the year 2017 which was much after the office of the respondent no. 5 was vacated on 30.11.2015. 7. In response to the submission of Mr. Nath that the demand made by the petitioner for enhancement of the monthly standard rent was belated, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had raised the claim for enhanced monthly standard rent as far back as in the year 2011 vide her letter dated 22.01.2011 and it is continuing cause of action which subsists till date. 8. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. 9. Since pleas with regard to maintainability of the writ petition involving money claim and requiring factual determination of disputed questions have been raised, it is apposite to examine as to whether the power of judicial review available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised in matters involving such pleas. 10. The petitioner herein is an octogenarian lady, presently aged about 86 years. 10. The petitioner herein is an octogenarian lady, presently aged about 86 years. It is settled that while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court has to bear in mind the fact that the power to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution of India. It is the discretion of the Court which after having regard to the facts of the case, has to decide whether to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. This plenary right of the High Court to issue writ is not normally be exercised to the exclusion of other available remedies unless the action of the State is found to be arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the Constitutional mandate embedded in Article 14 of the Constitution of India or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the jurisdiction. 10.1. In ABL International Limited and another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and others, reported in [2004] 3 SCC 553, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after a survey of a number of precedents, in paragraph-27 thereof, has observed the legal principles as to the maintainability of a writ petition in the following words :-[a] in an appropriate case, a writ petition as against the State or an instrumentality of the State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable; [b] merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, the same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule; and [c] a writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable. 10.2. It has been held in Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India and others, reported in [2020] 13 SCC 285, that the mere existence of alternate forum where the aggrieved party may secure relief does not create a legal bar on a High court to exercise its writ jurisdiction. It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court amongst several factors. It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court amongst several factors. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court being fundamentally discretionary, even the existence of an alternate remedy is merely an additional factor to be taken into consideration in taking a decision as to whether or not to exercise its writ jurisdiction. In exercising its discretion to entertain a particular case under Article 226, the High Court may take into consideration various factors including the nature of the injustice that is alleged by the petitioner, whether or not an alternate remedy exists, or whether the facts raise a question of constitutional interpretation. 10.3. Whether the writ petition raises disputed questions of fact or does not involve disputed questions of fact is dependent on the facts presented before the Court by the parties in contest. The High Court does not ordinarily determine disputed questions of fact in a writ petition. It has been observed in Smt. Gunwant Kaur and others vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and others, reported in 1996 [3] SCC 769, that what facts are in dispute and what facts are not in dispute could only be determined after an affidavit-in-reply is filed by the State and the High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner’s right to relief questions of fact may also fall to be determined. Exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for determination require oral evidence to be taken, the High Court may take the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition and in such situation, the High Court may decline to try a writ petition. 11. After taking into consideration the principles laid down in the above decisions when one reverts back to the fact situation obtaining in the case in hand, it is found that there is no involvement of any disputed question of fact with regard to the subject-property or the subject-plot or the subject-house. 11. After taking into consideration the principles laid down in the above decisions when one reverts back to the fact situation obtaining in the case in hand, it is found that there is no involvement of any disputed question of fact with regard to the subject-property or the subject-plot or the subject-house. The only issue that has arisen for consideration is whether for payment of the monthly standard rent, the entire subject-property is to be taken into consideration or it is only the subject-house for which the respondent authorities shall require to pay the standard monthly rent. 12. When the subject-house was taken on rent for locating the office of the respondent no. 5 in the year 1995, it was the respondent no. 2 who assessed the standard monthly rent @ Rs. 3,436/-. While arriving at the said standard monthly rent, the respondent no. 2 had taken the building value of the subject-house and the land value of the subject-plot into consideration. While arriving at the building value of the subject-house, the respondent no. 2 had got it assessed through the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Tezpur Building Division. 12.1. The methodology adopted by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur while assessing rent for the subject-property for the period w.e.f. 04.10.1995 was as under : Table – I Property Value Source A Building Value Rs. 2,64,667.00 Vide the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Sonitpur Building Division No. Acctts.110/85-86/4490 dated 05.10.1995 B Land Value Rs. 2,85,191.00 Approved by the Additional Deputy Commissioner @ Rs. 20,660.00 per Katha for 02B--03K-16L Rent per month = [A+B] X 7 ½ ÷12 = [Rs. 2,64,667 + Rs. 2,85,191] X 7.5% ÷ 12 = Rs. 3,437 12.3. When the monthly standard rent was re-fixed in the year 2000 @ Rs. 4,667/-the same procedure was followed. Again when in the year 2005, standard monthly rent was assessed, the same procedure was followed. 13. In the case in hand, the valuation certificate dated 03.02.2017 of the respondent no. 2 [Annexure-12 to the writ petition], the letter dated 14.06.2019 [Annexure-17 to the writ petition] and the certificate dated 04.03.2019 issued by Executive Engineer, PWD, Tezpur Building Division [Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-reply] are not in dispute of the fact that the zonal valuation for the subject-land in question in the year 2010 was Rs. 5,00,000/-per Katha. The said position has also not been disputed by the respondent authorities. 5,00,000/-per Katha. The said position has also not been disputed by the respondent authorities. It is also not in dispute in the said documents that the valuation of the building as on 04.10.2010, was assessed at Rs. 12,07,663/-. 14. By the letter dated 05.03.2020 addressed to the respondent no. 5, the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur had provided the calculation sheet and the methodology followed while assessing rent for the subject-property for the period w.e.f. 04.10.2010 in the following manner : 15. The respondent authorities had got the monthly standard rent for the period w.e.f. 04.10.2010 calculated by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Tezpur Building Division who, by his certificate dated 04.03.2019, had arrived at the monthly standard rent in the following manner : Table – III Property Value Source A Building Value Rs. 12,07,663.00 B Land Value Rs. 17,00,000.00 3.40 Katha considered @ Rs. 5,00,000/- Rent per month = [A+B] X 7 ½ ÷12 = [Rs. 12,07,663.00 + Rs. 17,00,000] X 7.5% ÷ 12 = Rs. 18,173/- 16. The only departure that has been sought to be made by the respondent authorities with regard to fixation of monthly standard rent for the period w.e.f. 04.10.2010 is by excluding the entire area of subject-property in question, except the portion of subject-plot which is beneath the subject-house. The stand of the respondent authorities is that while assessing the monthly standard rent, only that portion of land which is beneath the subject-house, is to be considered for the purpose of assessing the monthly standard rent. While arriving at the figure of Rs. 18,173/-, the respondent authorities had taken into consideration only the portion of subject-plot worked out at 3.40 Katha, which the subject-house is covering and it did not take into consideration the balance part of the subject-plot measuring 02B-03K-16K. But during the period from the year 1995 to 2010, the respondent authorities while assessing the monthly standard rent against the subject-plot and while making payment of the monthly standard rent to the petitioner, it took into account valuations of both the subject-plot measuring 02B-03K-16L and the subject-house separately for the purpose of arriving at the monthly standard rent. 17. But during the period from the year 1995 to 2010, the respondent authorities while assessing the monthly standard rent against the subject-plot and while making payment of the monthly standard rent to the petitioner, it took into account valuations of both the subject-plot measuring 02B-03K-16L and the subject-house separately for the purpose of arriving at the monthly standard rent. 17. Had it been the decision of the respondent authorities that from the year 2010 onwards the previously followed procedure for fixation of rent would not be followed by them, then the respondent authorities ought to have put the petitioner on notice by informing her that while making payment of the monthly standard rent for the subsequent period, the land valuation of the subject-plot would not be taken into consideration. Had such a decision been communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner would have the option either to accept or to reject such proposal but the respondent authorities did not inform the petitioner about any such decision at any earlier point of time after the petitioner made the prayer for enhancement of rent for the subject-property by her letter dated 22.01.2011 and by her other subsequent letters. In the event the petitioner was not found agreeable to such proposal, the respondent authorities had the only option of vacating the subject-property in the year 2010 itself. 18. It is a standard practice that whenever the State takes any private property on rental basis, the valuation is assessed as per the zonal valuation assessed by the competent authorities, be it of land or of any building. It is also a standard practice that the zonal valuation of land and the valuation of a building are revised from time to time by the norms fixed by the competent authority. It is also not in dispute that in respect of the zonal valuation of lands, the Deputy Commissioner concerned is the competent authority and in respect of any building, it is the Assam Public Works Department [APWD], which is the competent authority. 19. When the State in its executive capacity deals with any of its citizens even in contractual fields also, its dealing must be fair, reasonable and should not be arbitrary. 19. When the State in its executive capacity deals with any of its citizens even in contractual fields also, its dealing must be fair, reasonable and should not be arbitrary. As has been found from above, the respondent authorities did not intimate the petitioner until institution of the writ petition by the petitioner, an octogenarian lady, in the year 2020 that on and from the year 2010, the respondent authorities wanted to make a departure from the earlier methodology of fixation/re-fixation of rent for the subject-property which it had followed during the period from 1995 to 2010. Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces within its sweep the obligation that every State action must be fair, transparent and free from arbitrariness irrespective of the field of activity of the State and it is a settled principle. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uniformed by reason is per se arbitrary. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. 20. When a departure is made from an earlier practice followed by the State or any agency of the State, then there has to be a reason for making such departure and such reason must be valid, rationale and just. In the case in hand, the respondent authorities have not intimated any discernible reason for making a departure from its earlier practice and as such, the action on the part of the respondent authorities in the case in hand can be termed as nothing but irrational and arbitrary. The departure that has been sought to be made here, is likely to bring adverse consequences in the form of lesser monetary amount to the petitioner. The departure that has been sought to be made here, is likely to bring adverse consequences in the form of lesser monetary amount to the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the respondent authorities not to make payment of the monthly standard rent on the basis of the valuations assessed for the entire subject-property by taking into account the zonal valuation of the subject-plot made by the competent authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur and the valuation of the subject-house made by the competent authority i.e. the APWD is arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable, being a departure made from the earlier procedure adopted during the period for last about 15 years, that is, from 1995 to 2010 and without disclosing any valid and just basis. As a corollary, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to receive the standard monthly rent for the period 04.10.2010 to 30.11.2015 against the subject-property on the basis of the zonal valuation of the subject-plot and the valuation of the subject-house together. In such obtaining facts and circumstances, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall work out the differential amount in respect of the monthly rent of the subject-property by taking into account the zonal valuation of the subject-plot, as assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur, and the valuation of the subject-house, as assessed by the respondent authorities in the APWD, as on 04.10.2010 and thereafter, shall pay the differential amount to the petitioner within a period of 4 [four] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the petitioner. It is, however, clarified that as an amount of Rs. 7,77,043/-has already been paid to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition, the said amount of Rs. 7,77,043/-shall be deducted from the differential amount so worked out. 21. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above, with no order as to cost.