IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL No.3608 OF 2019 (BDA) BETWEEN:
1. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. NOW REPRESENTED BY BHASKAR ON BEHALF OF DEPUTY SECRETARY.
2. THE FINANCE MEMBER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. NOW REPRESENTED BY BHASKAR ON BEHALF OF DEPUTY SECRETARY.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. ARPITHA WIFE OF SRIHARI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, WORKING AS SOFTWARE ENGINEER, RESIDENT OF NO.177, GEOLOGY LAYOUT, DEEPA COMPLEX, MUDDINAPALYA ROAD, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGLAURU-560 072.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI U.PANDURANGA NAYAK, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.42887 OF 2018 [BDA], BY CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2019, passed in writ petition No.42887 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge, in quashing the impugned Annexure ‘F’ dated 31.08.2018 and directing the Bengaluru Development Authority to proceed with the confirmation of the sale of the site in question, the Bengaluru Development Authority is in appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants – Bengaluru Development Authority contends that there was a technical error insofar as uploading the details of the site in question on two occasions. Therefore, the impugned endorsement to the writ petitioner was issued intimating her about the cancellation of the e-auction. During the interregnum the writ petitioner was held to be the highest bidder and she had deposited 25% of the site value subject to payment of balance amount. Without taking into consideration the fact situation, the learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned Annexure ‘F’ and directed the Bengaluru Development Authority to proceed with the confirmation of sale.
3. On considering the contentions of the appellants’ counsel, we find no merit in this appeal. Even assuming that the site was reserved for e- auction on two occasions also, the fact remains that the site was still available with them and it was only due to technical error in uploading the details of the site for e-auction there was an auction on two occasions. It is not the case of the Bengaluru Development Authority that the site is not available for auction. Once the site is available for auction and the writ petitioner is declared as the highest bidder, necessarily, the appellants’ - Bengaluru Development Authority in pursuance of the public notification issued by them, have to proceed with the confirmation of sale of the site in question. We do not find any infirmity as such committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order in the writ petition. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Pending I.A’s. is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj