Sateesh Jaiwant Parulekhar V. The Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District and The City Municipal Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Karwar

WP/103447/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Sateesh Jaiwant Parulekhar, a supervisor at SVT Constructions, who filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the City Municipal Commissioner, Karwar, and the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider his earlier representation for the payment of a balance amount of 45,46,801/-, which includes the security deposit and EMD, for contractual work completed. The petitioner argued that despite the submission of the representation on 11.01.2018, there had been no response or action taken by the respondent, prompting the need to approach the court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 830308 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 203AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KATTIMANI; S V YAJI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJASHEKAR GUNJALLI
• Keywords: Balance payment; Earnest Money Deposit; Security Deposit; Tax deducted at source; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 203AA

Judgement Text

" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:303 WP No. 103447 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 103447 OF 2022 (LB) BETWEEN: SATEESH JAIWANT PARULEKAR S/O. JAIWANT, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SUPERVISOR, SVT CONSTRUCTIONS, TYVAKANAHALLI VILLAGE-562125, BIDARAGUPPE POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR R.GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR-581301. 2. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, M.G.ROAD, KARWAR-581301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.01.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-E FOR PAYMENT OF BALANCE OF AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. Printed from counselvise.com GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.20 15:20:05 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:303 WP No. 103447 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 – City Municipal Commissioner, Karwar, to consider the representation dated 11.01.2018 (Annexure-E), and to release the balance amount payable to the petitioner, including the security deposit and Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent is liable to pay a total sum of ₹45,46,801/- It is submitted that, despite execution of the contractual work, respondent No.2 has failed to clear the dues. In support of his claim, reliance is placed on the Annual Tax Statements issued under Section 203AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2009-2010 and 2010-11. Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:303 WP No. 103447 of 2022 3. It is further contended, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 11.01.2018 requesting settlement of the balance amount and the same has not been considered by respondent No.2 till date, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the petitioner’s monetary claim, this Court is of the considered view that grievance of the petitioner can be addressed by directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of. ii. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider petitioner’s representation dated 11.01.2018 (Annexure-E) and Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:303 WP No. 103447 of 2022 pass appropriate orders, after due verification of the amounts claimed and the tax deducted at source as reflected in Annual Tax Statement issued under Section 203AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64 Printed from counselvise.com "