- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48407 WP No. 6918 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 6918 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. YOGESH V.K. S/O SRI. KRISHNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S RISHABH INFRACON LTD., R/AT NO.415, 8TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR DEEPA COMPLEX, ITI LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 056. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. H P GANGESH GOWDA.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LTD., P.B.ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560055. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHARANDEEP,ADVOCATE) THIS WP UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS FILED PRAYING TO-DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PENDING BILL OF THE PETITIONER AMOUNTING TO RS. 498000 AS AT ANNEXURE-C DTD 11/04/2022 WITH INTEREST AT 18 PERCENT P.A FROM 29/10/2019 TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48407 WP No. 6918 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is as to issue writ of mandamus to the respondent to release the payment in respect of the pending bill of the petitioner amounting to Rs.4,98,000/- , with interest. 3. The petitioner was entrusted with the Consultancy for Structural design and allied works as per the work order dated 24.01.2019 (Annexure-A). Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 17.11.2025, the petitioner has filed a final report for the month of March 2019 (Annexure-X). 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent disputing the completion of the work by the petitioner. 5. In that view of the matter, as the respondents are disputing the nature of the work and also it is forthcoming that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48407 WP No. 6918 of 2023 completion certificate issued by the respondent is not produced before this Court and further as the disputed question of facts are involved with regard to the release of the amount, I am of the considered view that, writ petition would not lie at this stage. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Competent Civil Court seeking redressal of the grievance reserving liberty to the petitioner, if so advised. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner to return the certified copies produced by the petitioner if any. 8. In that view of the matter, the Registry is hereby directed to return certified copies after replacing of the same, forthwith. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE HR