IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16755 OF 2021 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

VISHAL PATHANGE G SON OF GOPAL KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT NO.2082, SHOBHA CHYRASANTHEMUM, TANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, NARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560077 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Digitally signed by VIDHANA SOUDHA, SUMA BENGALURU-560001 Location:

HIGH 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COURT OF JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, KARNATAKA CHAMARAJAPURA, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570005, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SRI. G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE UNNUMBERED ORDER DATED 2(/3) AUGUST 2021 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-D) ONLY IN RESPECT OF SITE BEARING NO.4026/A OF VIJAYANAGAR 4TH STAGE, 2ND PHASE, MYSORE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the 'unnumbered' order dated 2^nd/3^rd of August, 2021 passed by respondent No.2 in respect of site bearing No.4026/A of Vijaynagar 4^th Stage, 2^nd phase, Mysuru.

2. (i) The petitioner contends that respondent No.2 published a notification dated 05.07.2021 for e-auction of corner and middle sites. The petitioner was interested in site bearing No.4026/A, Vijaynagar 4^th Stage, 2^nd phase, Mysuru, for which the reserved price was fixed at Rs.47,66,000/-. The petitioner submitted his bid for Rs.47,66,000/- and emerged as the highest bidder. He thereafter received an SMS on 06.08.2021 from an officer of respondent No.2 calling upon him to deposit 25% of the bid amount. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- on 06.08.2021.

(ii) The petitioner contends that on 01.09.2021, respondent No.2 issued another e-auction notification proposing to sell 282 sites. The site for which the petitioner had submitted his bid was also re-notified. On verification, the petitioner came to know that respondent No.2 passed an order rejecting his bid on the ground that the price offered was not satisfactory.

(iii) The petitioner claims that he was not informed of the reason of rejection of his bid. He therefore filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as 'RTI Act' for short) and came to know that in an earlier auction, the respondent No.2 had accepted a price escalation ranging from Rs.50,000/- to less than Rs.2,00,000/-. He therefore contends that respondent No.2 having fixed the reserve price, could not have abandoned the auction process but must have negotiated the price with him. He further contends that the reason for respondent No.2 not being satisfied with his bid amount was that, in respect of another auction conducted two months after the auction of site No.4026/A, respondent No.2 had received a higher bid. He contends that this cannot be criteria for canceling the auction of site No.4026/A. He also contends that various sites in Devanur, 2^nd Stage, 2^nd phase, Hebbal 1^st stage and Vijayanagara 4^th Stage, 2^nd phase were sold for lesser amounts and therefore the claim of respondent No.2 that it was not satisfied with the petitioner's bid is only a ruse to deny him the benefit of the auction.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the reason for rejection of the bid of the petitioner is apparently illegal, in as much as, the respondent No.2 had called upon the petitioner to deposit 25% of the bid amount, which was accordingly done and long thereafter, without notice to the petitioner, the auction was cancelled. He contends that various o