IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.42887/2018 (BDA) BETWEEN:
SMT ARPITHA W/O SRIHARI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS WORKING AS SOFTWARE ENGINEER R/AT No.177, GEOLOGY LAYOUT DEEPA COMPLEX, MUDDINAPALYA ROAD NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI H.T.VASANTH KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560020.
2. THE FINANCE MEMBER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.08.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY THE RESPONDENT No.2 BY DECLARING AS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL; AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the communication dated 31.08.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 whereby the auction of site to which the petitioner was the highest bidder has been cancelled and 25% of the amount paid by the petitioner has been refunded in order to re-conduct the e-auction afresh.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the highest bidder of site No.39 of further extension of Sir M. Visveshwaraiah Layout. It is submitted that pursuant to the notification dated 26.03.2018, the petitioner has participated in the e-auction of the corner site by depositing Rs.4 Lakhs as EMD deposit for each site in respect of four sites. The amount of deposit in respect of three sites was refunded accepting the bid offered in respect of site No.39 of Sir M. Visveswaraiah Layout and the petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the value of the site. Accordingly, the petitioner has deposited the same within the time stipulated. It is the grievance of the petitioner instead of confirmation of the sale, the respondents have cancelled the auction and attempted to re-auction the said site.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would submit that the petitioner having participated in the e-auction proceedings held on 28.06.2018, being the highest bidder is entitled to confirmation of the sale. The respondents have issued cancellation order without assigning valid reasons despite the petitioner complying with the conditions of auction sale as stipulated under the Bangalore Development Authority [Disposal of Corner Sites, Intermediate Sites, Commercial Sites and other Auctionable Sites] Rules, 1984.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents – Bangalore Development Authority has filed the statement of objections and the relevant passages of the same are quoted here under for ready reference:
“4] The respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectfully submit that, the respondent authority on 31.08.2018 vide its communication in No.Ben.Apra./AaSs/E- Haraju/FESMVL/7/39/2018-19 has clearly stated that there was a Technical error in uploading the details of the site to the E- auction website and the same site was uploaded for the E-auction twice.
5] The respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectfully submit that on 18.08.2018 the E- auction Confirmation Committee has decided to completely refund the amount that is 25% of the total site value of the Sir.M.V.Veshweshwariah Layout, 7th Block Site No.39 to the bidder as there was some technical error in uploading the site for E- procurement.
6] The respondent Nos.2 and 2 respectfully submit that based on the decision taken by the E-auction Confirmation Committee, 25% of the total site value that is Rs.11,00,580/- [including Rs.4,00,000/-] has to be returned to the bidder hence, Corporation Bank challan No.1909 for a sum of Rs.7,00,580/- has been sent to the bidder to sign so that the amount can be refunded. Therefore, due to the above mentioned facts, the impugned Endorsement at Annexure-F has been issued to the petitioner, which is neither contrary to the Allotment Rules nor the practices and procedures of the respondents.”
Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the same.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the material on record, it is apparent that neither the statement of objections nor the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Bangalore Development Authority would indicate what was the technical error caused in uploading the site in question for E-procurement. Even assuming if the same site No.39 was uploaded for E- auction second time, it is not in dispute that no proceedings have been continued in furtherance with the uploading of the site for auction sale pursuant to any technical error committed in uploading for the second time. On the other hand, the e-auction conducted on 28.06.2018 relating to the site in question and the petitioner being the highest bidder in the auction is not in dispute. If that being the factual position, if any technical error has been committed in uploading the same site for the second time, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in canceling the further proceedings pursuant to the uploading of the said site for the e-procurement again.
6. The decision taken by the e-auction Confirmation Committee to refund the 25% of the sital value deposited by the petitioner and to conduct re- auction is wholly unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also not forthcoming that any flaw has been committed in as much as auction proceedings conducted on 28.06.2018. The reasons assigned by the respondents to conduct re- auction the site in question is unacceptable and deserves to be set aside.
7. For the aforegoing reasons, the impugned Annexure-F dated 31.08.2018 is quashed. The respondents – Bangalore Development Authority shall proceed with the confirmation of sale of the site in question in respect of the petitioner – the highest bidder of the auction sale conducted on 28.06.2018 in pursuant to the public notification dated 23.06.2018 subject to payment of balance amount.
8. Compliance of this order shall be made by the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority in an expedite manner.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.