Vijaya Oohmedia Private Ltd. Vs Directoarate of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Vijaya Oohmedia Private Ltd. Vs Directoarate of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petitioner was advised it may seek appropriate relief by instituting a civil suit before the competent forum.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed, by writ of mandamus, to issue the work order in respect of the pending invoices TD/ADVT/85/2016-17 dated 06.01.2017 and to release the pending work extension order for the period 07.07.2017 to 17.10.2017 vide Work Order No. TD/ADVT/85/2016-2017, and whether the Endorsement dated 21/22.11.2019 calls for interference. +1 more

Court's answer

No interference is called for in the writ petition; the writ petition is dismissed and all pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

The matter involves disputed questions of fact, including the petitioner’s monetary claim of ₹7,96,959/–, which require detailed examination of evidence that cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate relief by instituting a civil suit before the competent forum, if so advised.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) — Mandamus; disputed questions of fact; writ jurisdiction declined. Vijaya Oohmedia Private Ltd filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the Directorate of Tourism and the Principal Secretary (Tourism), Government of Karnataka, seeking issuance of the work order for pending invoices TD/ADVT/85/2016-17 dated 06.01.2017 and release of the pending work extension order for 07.07.2017 to 17.10.2017 vide Work Order No. TD/ADVT/85/2016-2017, and challenging an Endorsement dated 21/22.11.2019. The respondent–Government had issued a work order dated 06.01.2017 for display of electronic advertisements on light boxes mounted on metro pillars for 07.01.2017 to 09.01.2017 (three days); the petitioner contended its bills were withheld without a subsequent work order despite completed work. Holding that the matter involved disputed questions of fact, including the petitioner’s monetary claim of ₹7,96,959/–, requiring detailed examination of evidence not possible in writ jurisdiction, the Court (Justice E.S. Indiresh) left the petitioner at liberty to institute a civil suit before the competent forum and dismissed the writ petition, with all pending applications dismissed.

NC: 2025:KHC:47954 WP No. 14537 of 2022

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.14537 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

VIJAYA OOHMEDIA PRIVATE LTD HAVING ITS OFFICES AT "GANAPA" NO.12/2, 2^ND 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:

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S 1. DIRECTOARATE OF TOURISM Location: HIGH COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR KARNATAKA NO.49, 2^ND MAIN KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560001.

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TOURISM GOVERNEMNT OF KARNATAKA VIKAS SOUDHA

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47954 WP No. 14537 of 2022

HC-KAR

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.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

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 - NC: 2025:KHC:47954 WP No. 14537 of 2022

HC-KAR

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.

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.

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