- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47954 WP No. 14537 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.14537 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. VIJAYA OOHMEDIA PRIVATE LTD HAVING ITS OFFICES AT "GANAPA" NO.12/2, 2ND FLOOR GOVINDAPPA ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004 MR. PRADEEP KUMAR K. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O RAMAHCHANDRA RAO PROPRIETOR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DIRECTOARATE OF TOURISM REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR NO.49, 2ND MAIN KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TOURISM GOVERNEMNT OF KARNATAKA VIKAS SOUDHA Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47954 WP No. 14537 of 2022 BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE WORK ORDER IN RESPECT OF PENDING INVOICES TD/ADVT/85/2016-17 DATED 06.01.2017 AND TO RELEASE PENDING WORK EXTENSION ORDER FOR THE PERIOD 07.07.2017 TO 17.10.2017 VIDE WORK ORDER NO.TD/ADVT/85/2016-2017; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the Work Order in respect of the pending invoices as per Annexure–A dated 06.01.2017, to release the pending work extension order as per Annexure–H, and has also challenged the Endorsement dated 21/22.11.2019. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. A perusal of the writ papers, along with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, indicate that the respondent–Government issued work order dated 06.01.2017 to display electronic advertisements on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47954 WP No. 14537 of 2022 the light boxes mounted on the metro pillars for the period from 07.01.2017 to 09.01.2017 i.e. for three days. The petitioner contends that the respondents have raised a disputed claim and that the petitioner’s bills have been withheld without issuing the subsequent work order, despite the petitioner having completed the assigned work. 4. In view of the above, it is evident that the matter involves disputed questions of fact, including the petitioner’s monetary claim of ₹7,96,959/–. It is to be noted that, such issues require detailed examination of evidence, which cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate relief by instituting a civil suit before the competent forum, if so advised. 5. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16