- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28090-DB WA No. 50 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. VIJAYA OOHMEDIA PRIVATE LTD HAVING ITS OFFICES AT "GANAPA" No.12/2 2ND FLOOR, GOVINDAPPA ROAD BASAVANAGUI, BANGALORE - 560 004 BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. PRADEEP KUMAR K.R. AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO PRESENTLY #166, SIDDIVINAYAK 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS HANUMA HILLS LAYOUT BSK III STAGE BENGALURU - 560 061 …APPELLANT (BY SRI VARDHAMAN V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DIRECTOARATE OF TOURISM REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR No.49, 2ND MAIN KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28090-DB WA No. 50 of 2026 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TOURISM, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.14537/2022 (GM-RES) DATED 20TH NOVEMBER, 2025 & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the application―I.A.No.2/2026, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14537/2022 (GM-RES) [impugned order]. 3. The appellant has filed the said writ petition, inter alia, praying that the respondents be directed to issue a work order in respect of pending - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28090-DB WA No. 50 of 2026 invoices dated 06.01.2017 and to release the pending work extension order for the period from 07.07.2017 to 17.10.2017. 4. The appellant states that he was engaged in media and publicity services. He states that the respondents had issued a work order dated 06.01.2017 for display of advertisements during 'Pravasiya Bharatiya Diwas'. It is claimed that the said advertisements were continued beyond the original period and part payments were also released. The appellant claims that the State Government had requested that the advertisements be continued for a further period of six months. But no work order had been issued. 5. The appellant had raised invoices, which were not supported by any work order. Thus, the said invoices have not been paid, it is in this backdrop, the appellant filed the impugned writ petition, inter alia, praying as under: "The petitioner therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to: (a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to issue Work Order in respect of pending invoices TD/ADVT/85/2016-2017 dated 06.01.2017 (Annexure-A) 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 dated 24.01.2019 (Annexure- H); (b) Quash Annexure-G, the endorsement dated 21/22-11- 2019 No.Tourism Department/S1/39/2018-19/435, as illegal and arbitrary rejection without application of mind, to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28090-DB WA No. 50 of 2026 extent of the dues not paid towards the second period of advertisement i.e., 07.01.2017 to 06.07.2017 and consequently issue a mandamus to make the payments which are budgeted expenditures' (c) Issue such order or directions as this Hon'ble Court might deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case." 6. The appellant also made an interim prayer that respondent No.1 be directed to release a sum of Rs.1,59,72,000/-. The learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the said writ petition as the subject matter involved several disputed questions of fact. 7. We find no infirmity with the said decision. The petition is essentially claiming amounts which according to the petitioner are due and payable for the work done. Apart from the merits of the said claim, it would also be necessary to consider the question whether the claims are barred by limitation. 8. The appeal is unmerited and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8