Disposed¶45

M/S Pradeep Construction Company v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2026WP/108890/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad; writ of mandamus; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; KNNL Khanapur; release of EMD Rs.2,99,125/- and FSD Rs.17,74,154/- with 18% interest (total Rs.31,93,368/-); SCP package CC roads and drains, Haliyal and Joida taluks, Uttara Kannada; work indent KNNL/2017-18/RD WORK-INDENT227878 dated 22.08.2017; representation dated 29.09.2025 Annexure-A; direction to consider representation within eight weeks; petition disposed; Justice Lalitha Kanneganti.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.09.2025 in accordance with law within eight weeks; all interlocutory applications in the writ petition closed. ¶45

M/S Pradeep Construction Company Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.09.2025 in accordance with law within eight weeks; all interlocutory applications in the writ petition closed.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.3 should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.09.2025 seeking release of the EMD and FSD amounts with interest towards the KNNL tender work.

¶30

Court's answer

When representations are given seeking return of the EMD amount and other amounts, the respondents are duty bound to consider them in accordance with law and tell the petitioner whether he is entitled, instead of keeping quiet without taking any action, so that the petitioner may avail the appropriate remedy available to him.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.3 shall consider the representation dated 29.09.2025 given by the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks; accordingly the writ petition is disposed off and all I.As. stand closed.

¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) No.108890 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad (Lalitha Kanneganti J.), disposed on 04-02-2026. The petitioner contractor, whose work under KNNL work indent KNNL/2017-18/RD WORK-INDENT227878 dated 22.08.2017 was completed and certified satisfactory, alleged non-release of EMD of Rs.2,99,125/- and FSD of Rs.17,74,154/- (claimed with 18% interest, totalling Rs.31,93,368/-) despite representations including one dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure-A). Holding that respondents are duty bound to consider such representations in accordance with law rather than remain silent, the Court declined to require instructions from counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and directed respondent No.3 (Executive Engineer, KNNL Project Division, Khanapur) to consider the representation dated 29.09.2025 in accordance with law, expeditiously and not later than eight weeks; the writ petition was disposed of and all I.As. closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1574 WP No. 108890 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.108890 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S. PRADEEP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ENGINEER AND CONTRACTORS, OFFICE AT VRINDAVAN APARTMENT, OPP. BUB COLLEGE, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, R/BY ONE OF THE PARTNER, JAGANATH S/O. GANAPATI SHETTY, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. PARTNER M/S PRADEEP CONSTRUCTION AND CO ENGINEER AND CONTRACTORM R/O. #32-33, PRAGATI COLONY, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD.

¶11

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA FINANCE DEPARTMENT, II FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KNNL BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1574 WP No. 108890 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KNNL PROJECT DIVISION KHANAPUR DISTRICT-591302.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI.CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 29.09.2025, WHEREIN THE PETITIONER SOUGHT FOR RELEASE OF PAYMENT OF EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT (EMD) AND FURTHER SECURITY DEPOSIT (FSD) WITH INTEREST OF 18% IT COMES TO THE TUNE OF RS.31,93,368/- TOWARDS TENDER WORK NAMELY CONSTRUCTION OF CC ROADS AND DRAINS IN KAVALWAD, SANGANAKOPPA, NANDIGADDA, JANAGA AND KALAGINAKOPPA, GUNDOLLI, YEDOGA, JAVALLI, KOGILBAN MAJRE AND BELVATGI VILLAGES IN HALIYAL TALUK AND RAMANAGAR VILLAGE IN JOIDA TALLUK OF UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT UNDER SCP PACKAGE BEARING WORK INDENT KNNL/2017-18/RD WORK-INDENT227878 DATED 22.08.2017. B. THE HON’BLE COURT MAY ALSO BE PLEASED TO PASS ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER, DIRECTION ETC IN THE ABOVE CASE TO SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1574 WP No. 108890 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶29

prayer:

¶30

“a. To issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner’s representation at Annexure A dtd 29.09.2025, wherein the petitioner sought for release of payment of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Further Security Deposit (FSD) with interest of 18% it comes to the tune of Rs.31,93,368/towards tender work namely “Construction of CC roads and Drains in Kavalwad, Sanganakoppa, Nandigadda, Janaga And Kalaginakoppa, Gundolli, Yedoga, Javalli, Kogilban Majre and Belvatgi villages in Haliyal taluk and Ramanagar village in Joida talluk of Uttar Kannada District under SCP Package bearing work indent KNNL/2017-18/RD WORK-INDENT227878 dated 22.08.2017”

¶31

b. The Hon’ble Court may also be pleased to pass any other writ, order, direction etc in the above case to serve the ends of justice.”

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that on 22.08.2017 the

¶33

respondents have issued tender notification and the work order has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has completed the work and the respondents have issued a satisfactory certificate to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that even after completing the work, the respondents have not released the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of an amount of Rs.2,99,125/- and Further Security Deposit (FSD) of an amount

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1574 WP No. 108890 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

of Rs.17,74,154/- with interest @ 18% per annum. He has made several representations to the respondents but the respondents have failed to consider the same, which made the petitioner to come before this Court. It is submitted that there shall be a direction to the respondent to consider his representation.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and 3

¶38

submits that he would get instructions in this regard.

¶39

When the petitioner has given representations to the

¶40

respondents that they have to return the EMD amount and the other amounts, the respondents are duty bound to consider the same in accordance with law and tell the petitioner whether he is entitled for the same or not so that the petitioner would avail the appropriate remedy available to him and it is not appropriate on the part of the respondents to keep quiet without taking any action on the representation. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that no instructions are required to be obtained by the counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and 3. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1574 WP No. 108890 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The respondent No.3 shall consider the representation dated 29.09.2025 given by the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks.

¶45

(ii) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off.

¶46

(iii) All I.As., in this writ petition stand closed.

¶47

Sd/JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶48

YAN CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 0

M/S Pradeep Construction Company v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pradeep Construction Company v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekhappa Ningappa Gourakkanavar Vs Giriyappa Ningappa Gourakkanavar

Ashok S/O Nagendra Bamane Vs the State Co. Operative Election Authority

Gulappa S/O Babu Sasalatti Vs Smt. Satyevva W/O Vithal Honagoud

M/S Pradeep Construction Company Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Indus Towers Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahesh Ganiger S/O Mallikarjun Ganiger Vs Smt Keerthi Totad