IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2026 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. VISHAL PATHANGE G., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O GOPAL KRISHNA RAO, R/AT: NO. 1112, SHOBHA CHYRASANTHEMUM, TANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, NARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 077.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAYANA TARA B G., ADVOCATE)

Digitally AND:

signed by REKHA R Location: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, High Court REPRESENTED BY of Karnataka PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURA, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 005.

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1, MS. MEGHA SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.16755/2021 AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

Unsuccessful petitioner is before us in this appeal under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.16755/2021. The Writ Court under the impugned order disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondent No.2 to re-auction the site bearing No.4026/A, Vijaynagar 4^th Stage, 2^nd Phase, Mysuru, by giving wide publicity in a time bound manner and further directed respondent No.2 to forthwith refund a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the rate of deposit till the date of re-payment.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court.

3. The facts germane to filing of the present appeal are as under:

(i) It is the claim of the petitioner that respondent No.2 published a Notification dated 05.07.2021 for e- auction of corner and middle sites. The petitioner who was interested in site bearing No.4026/A, Vijaynagar 4^th Stage, 2^nd Phase, Mysuru opted the same, for which the reserved price was fixed at Rs.47,66,000/-. The petitioner submitted his bid for the said amount and emerged as highest bidder among two. Thereafter, he has received a Short Message Service ('SMS' for short) on 06.08.2021 from an Officer of the respondent No.2, calling upon him to deposit 25% of the bid amount. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- on 06.08.2021.

(ii) While the petitioner was waiting for the allotment order, to his dismay, he noticed that on 01.09.2021, respondent No.2 issued another e-auction Notification proposing to sell 282 sites and the site for which the petitioner had submitted his bid was also re-notified. On verification, he noticed that respondent No.2 passed an order rejecting his bid on the ground that the price offered was not satisfactory.

(iii) It was further contented that the petitioner was neither notified nor informed the reason of rejection of his bid. He thereafter filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, ('RTI' for short). On the basis of the information, he came to know that in an earlier auction, the respondent No.2 had accepted price escalation ranging from Rs.50,000/- to less than Rs.2,00,000/-. He therefore contends that this cannot be a criteria for cancelling the auction of Site No.4036/A, since respondent No.2 had received a higher bid. It was also contended 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 the respondent No.2 that, it was not satisfied with the petitioner's bid is only a ruse to deny him the benefit of the a