An appellate court will not interfere with a lower court's order if it was passed based on the clear, informed submission and consent of the counsel for the parties, as the party is bound by such representations.

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:16.02.2026 IN WP NO.4991/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR 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 T.M NADAF)

1. The unsuccessful petitioners in W.P.No.4991/2026 are before us in this appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the Writ Court.

2. Under the impugned order, the Writ Court disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners on the submission recorded at paragraph No.8 of the order.

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

4. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under:

The petitioners filed the Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:

(i) Call for records pertains to Commercial Shops Public E-auction publication bearing No.Pu.Ka.Kru/Kam/Sha/E-Auction/01/2025-26 dated: 19.01.2026 issued by respondent No.3.

(ii) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Commercial Shops Public e auction publication bearing No. Pu.Ka.Kru/Kam/Sha/E-Auction/01/2025-26 dated: 19.01.2026 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A as illegal bad in law in so far as petitioners concerned.

(iii) Pass any appropriate order deems fit to the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the interest of justice.

5. The grievance of the petitioners is that they being the tenants of various shops in Commercial complex at K.R.Pet belonging to the respondents. The respondents are now proposing to auction the said Commercial shops by way of E-auction and thereafter, proposing to dispossess the petitioners from their respective shops. Calling in question the E-auction publication dated 19.01.2026 vide Annexure-A, the petitioners were before the Writ Court.

6. The Writ Court observed that merely because the petitioners are tenants of the Commercial shops, they cannot continue to be using the said premises after the expiry of the lease period. Further observed that in terms of the guidelines issued of the year 2019, the TMC is required to deal with the public properties by way of public auction and during that stage, a existing tenant has an option to participate in the auction and if successful to continue to retain the possession by making payment in terms of the auction notification, else the tenant has to hand over the possession, or the tenant also has another option of exercising right to First Refusal by choosing not to participate in the auction and making payment of 5% over and above the highest amount bid at the said auction.

7. The Writ Court taking into consideration of the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on instructions that, the petitioners would exercise the second option i.e., right to Refusal, disposed of the Writ Petition with the following:

"ORDER

i. The writ petition is disposed of.

ii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to excise their Right to First Refusal, post the e-auction being held on 18.02.2026 and make their offer in terms of guidelines within time frames stipulated therein.

iii. If no such offer is made by the petitioner, the respondent would be free to take such action for eviction of the petitioner as may be permissible under law after the expiry of 30 days from the date of auction being held."

It is this order passed by the Wr