IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.15120 OF 2011 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI RUDRASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O. HUCHEERAIAH RESIDING AT KANCHUGAL BANDEMATTA BANAVADI POST, MAGADI TALUQ RAMANAGARA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI B.M.KARUNESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O. LATE B.M.MADAIAH C/O.NO.10, VITTAL MALYA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 … PETITIONER (BY SRI SHYAM KOUNDINYA A.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER K.G.ROAD BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 009 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI D.R.RAJASHEKARAPPA, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2010 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE ‘E’ AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO ACCEPT THE FULL AMOUNT OF RS.78,00,000/- DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER AND COMPLETE THE AUCTION FORMALITIES IN TERMS OF THE AUCTION NOTIFICATION DATED 11.08.2008 AT ANNEXURE ‘A’, INCLUDING ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri Shyam Koundinya A.S., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri D.R.Rajashekarappa, learned counsel for respondent.
In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 25.08.2010, passed by the respondent, by which 25% of the bid amount submitted by the petitioner has been forfeited. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to accept the full amount of Rs.78,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner and complete the terms and conditions of the bid notification.
2. The facts giving raise to filing of the petition are briefly stated that, the power of attorney holder - Sri B.M.Karunesh, participated in an auction proceedings in respect of the land measuring 4 acres 20 guntas of land in survey No.56 and deposited a sum of Rs.77,00,000/- by way of two demand drafts towards 25% of the bid amount. Thereafter, the respondent issued a notification on 11.08.2008, for auction of the land in respect of the survey No.48. In the aforesaid auction, the petitioner participated and was declared as the successful tenderer for a sum of Rs.78,00,000/- on 29.08.2008. Petitioner admittedly, deposited the sum of Rs.19,50,000/- which is 25% of the bid amount. The petitioner was required to deposit remaining 75% of the amount within a period of 10 days from the date of the acceptance of the bid. However, on 29.08.2008, the power of attorney holder of the petitioner made a representations for refund of the amount of Rs.77,00,000/- deposited on 05.07.2005 and 07.07.2005. Later on, petitioner learnt that the landlord of survey No.56 had succeeded in the proceedings initiated against the auction of their land before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and got an order for reconveyance of the land. On 30.03.2009, the respondent demanded balance payment of Rs.58,50,000/- towards auction held on 29.08.2008, being balance amount i.e., 75% of the bid amount. It is pleaded in the petition that the petitioner deposited aforesaid amount also by way of demand draft No.144145 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Bengaluru, in favour of the State Government towards auction in question. Thereafter the respondent made a demand for a sum of Rs.67,000/- towards cost of fencing of survey No.48 measuring 17 guntas. The petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount also. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation for consideration to refund the earlier amount and for confirming the auction proceedings. However, without considering the representation of the petitioner, by order dated 25.08.2010, forfeited 25% of the bid amount deposited by the petitioner in favour of the government.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after depositing the amount in question as demanded by respondent the petitioner has submitted a representation in which it was stated that after adjustment of the 75% of the bid amount, remaining amount may be refunded to the petitioner and auction proceedings be completed. Without taking action on the representation, the respondent has passed the order forfeiting 25% of the bid amount deposited by the petitioner without giving effect to the representation, the entire amount was forfeited to the State Government.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the Clause 15 of the notification states that the successful bidder i.e., the petitioner shall deposit 75% of the bid amount within 10 days. But the petitioner being failed in complying the said clause No.15, the impugned order dated 25.08.2010 has been passed forfeiting 25% of the bid amount deposited by the petitioner. Hence, he supports the impugned order.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and perused the records.
6. From the perusal of the records, it is evident that on 30.03.2009, the respondent demanded the balance amount of Rs.58,50,000/- from the petitioner being 75% of the remaining bid amount. The petitioner has averred in paragraph No.12 of the writ petition that the aforesaid amount was deposited by giving demand draft bearing No.14415 and admittedly, the aforesaid demand has been made beyond the period prescribed in the bid terms and conditions contained in the auction notice. It is evident that the respondent demanded the said amount on 30.03.2009 and it is also admitted that the petitioner has also deposited the said amount. If the aforesaid submission has been accepted by the respondent, the fact remains that the petitioner has submitted a representation with regard to the refund of the balance amount and to conclude the auction proceedings. However, the aforesaid representation of the petitioner was not considered and order forfeiting 25% of the bid amount was passed on 25.08.2010 and the bid was cancelled. The aforesaid auction of the respondent cannot be said to be reasonable as the respondent has accepted the amount deposited by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent in the fact and situation of the case ought to have considered the representation submitted by the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 25.08.2010.
7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
The order dated 25.08.2010 is hereby quashed.
Respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj