- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:119 WP No. 17710 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 17710 OF 2022 (BDA) BETWEEN: DR. KRISHNAPRASAD. M., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. RAMA BHAT. M., RESIDING AT NO.109, 1ST MAIN ROAD, GKVK LAYOUT, JAKKUR, BANGALORE-560 034. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RUKKOJI RAO H S.,ADVOCATE) AND: BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BDA ACT, 1976, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK (WEST), BANGALORE-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT DECLARE THAT RULE 6(4) OF THE BDA (DISPOSAL OF CORNER SITES AND COMMERCIAL SITES) RULES 1984 IS DISCRETIONARY AND NOT MANDATORY QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED.23.02.2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F BEARING NO.BDA/ANE/BSK-6/1303/2020-21. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:119 WP No. 17710 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the demand made by the respondent-BDA to pay the interest on the delayed payment of auction amount, which the petitioner has paid without prejudice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the contents of the petition submits that the petitioner was a successful bidder in the e-auction that was held on 12.08.2000 in respect of a site bearing No.1303, situated at Banashankari 6th Stage, 6th Block Layout, Bengaluru and had paid 25% of the bid amount i.e., Rs.72,04,725/- within three days. That he was required to pay a balance 75% of the auction amount, which is Rs.2,13,98,033/- within 45 days thereof. That before the expiry of the said period of 45 days, petitioner being intended to have the actual measurement of the auctioned site, approached the respondent-BDA. Petitioner along with the representative of the respondent- BDA had visited the spot and noticed certain obstruction/dispute being raised by the neighboring owners, which was taken note of even by the representatives of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:119 WP No. 17710 of 2022 respondent-BDA. That the petitioner in furtherance thereof made a representation dated 28.09.2020 as per Annexure-C narrating the incidents that transpired during their visit to the spot and had sought for resolution of the dispute by the BDA, enabling the petitioner to pay the balance 75% of the auction amount. Annexure-E is the Office Notings of the respondent-BDA, paragraph No.4 of which would indicate that the respondent-BDA had resolved the matter on 21.11.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner admittedly deposited the balance 75% of the auction amount on 30.11.2020. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has performed his part of the contractual obligations without any delay as such the demand made by the respondent-BDA for payment of interest referring to the provisions of Rule 6 (4) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to the Rules, 1984) was misconceived. However, without prejudice, the petitioner has indeed paid the interest amount as demanded by the respondent-BDA on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:119 WP No. 17710 of 2022 24.06.2021, which the petitioner was coerced to pay illegally, which he is now seeking refund of. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction submits that he is not pressing the relief No.1, he is only concerned with relief No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA on the other hand submits that the petitioner was made known that the auction was on ''as is where is basis'' and that there was no dispute with regard to measurement as mentioned in Annexure-B dated 04.09.2020. The grounds urged in the petition seeking refund of the interest cannot be entertained in view of the specific provisions made Rule 6 (4) of the Rules, 1984. He further submits a representation in this regard made in the petition has been suitable replied, in that since there is no provision of waiving of the interest, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. Thus he submits that the petition lacks merits seeks dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard and perused the records. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:119 WP No. 17710 of 2022 6. There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner was the successful bidder in the e-auction that was conducted on 12.08.2020, the respondent-BDA in which the petitioner was held to be successful auction purchaser of the subject site for aggregate sum of Rs.28,818,900/-. There is also no dispute of the fact that the petitioner had paid 25% of the bid amount within three days. Equally there is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner along with the representatives of the respondent-BDA had indeed visited the spot and there was certain obstruction/dispute raised by the neighboring site owners. Office Notings as per Annexure-E produced by the petitioner indicate that the respondent-BDA on its own, had resolved the said dispute on 21.11.2020 and within seven days thereof the petitioner had paid balance 75% of the auction amount. 7. Above being the admitted position of the facts, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent-BDA cannot press into service the provisions of Rule 6 (4) of the Rules, 1984 which operates in different - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:119 WP No. 17710 of 2022 context and domain. Rule 6 (4) of the Rules, 1984 is extracted hereunder: ''(4) The Commissioner may grant extension of time not exceeding two hundred and ten days for depositing the balance of the bid amount, subject to condition that during such extended period, the auction purchaser shall also pay the balance of the bid amount with an interest thereon at eighteen percent per annum upto ninety days and at twenty-one percent per annum thereafter upto two hundred and ten days with a penalty of rupees one hundred in each case. Failing such payment, the authority shall be entitled to forfeit the deposit made by the auction purchaser and resell the site at the risk and cost of the auction purchaser.'' Bare perusal of the said provision would indicate question of payment of interest would arise if auction purchaser/allottee seeks extension of time. 8. Facts narrated above would indicate that the petitioner has neither sought for extension of time for his inability to make the payment nor the same has been granted subject to condition of he paying any interest. On the other hand, it is clear from the records that when the petitioner visited the subject site along with representatives of the respondent-BDA, there was indeed obstruction/dispute raised by the neighboring owners, which matter was taken - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:119 WP No. 17710 of 2022 up by the respondent-BDA itself and as noted in paragraph No.4 of the Office Notings produced at Annexure-E, respondent-BDA has resolved the said dispute on 21.11.2020. Admittedly, the petitioner had paid the entire balance 75% of the auction amount on 30.11.2020 without any delay. 9. In that view of the matter, the request made by the petitioner to waive of the interest ought to have been considered by the respondent-BDA. Misreading of the provisions has led the respondent-BDA to insist the petitioner to pay the interest, which has also been paid by the petitioner without prejudice. This reflects the bonafides of the petitioner. 10. In that view of the matter, there is no justification in the respondent-BDA in imposing the interest for no fault of the petitioner, the amount of interest paid by the petitioner without prejudice under the circumstances narrated above, in the considered view of this Court, be directed to be refunded to the petitioner. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:119 WP No. 17710 of 2022 11. Accordingly, following: ORDER (i). Petition is partly allowed. (ii). Respondent-BDA is directed to refund the sum of Rs.3,41,029/- to the petitioner herein. (iii). It is made clear, the aforesaid order is passed in the peculiar fact circumstances of the case and the shall not be treated as a precedent. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40