- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8879 WP No. 23066 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 23066 OF 2022 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. MUNIRAJU C N AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O NAGARAJA V R/AT NO. 148, 4TH CROSS BDA LINK ROAD, BANASHANKARI, 6TH STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098. 2. SRIKANTH N.S. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O N.V. SREERAMAIAH SETTY R/AT NO. 377, SAMRUDDHI 1ST FLOOR, AREHALLI, AGS LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 061. 3. NAMA SREERAMAIAH KISHORE AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O N.V. SREERAMAIAH SETTY RA/T NO. 377, 2ND FLOOR, 22ND MAIN, AREAHALLI AGS LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 061. 4. HARSHA B.R AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O B.M.S. RUDRASWAMY R/AT 3680/6, MEDICAL HOSTEL ROAD, MCC, B BLOCK DAVANAGERE - 577 004. Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8879 WP No. 23066 of 2022 5. GIRISH MULGUND AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O SANKANNA MULGUND R/AT NO.202, DEVIMAA NILAYA 2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS GIRINAGAR BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085. 6. VINESH RADHAKRISHNA KAMAT AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O RADHAKRISHNA KAMAT R/AT NO.216, NELLIKERI POST KUMTA TA-KUMTA UTTARA KANNADA KARNATAKA - 581 343. 7. MR. AVINASH A.S AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O A. SUBBARAYADU R/AT NO. 508-1, 2ND MAIN ROAD, BSK 2ND STAGE, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU - 560 050. 8. MAHANTESH SAVANTRI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O BASAVANT SAVANTRI NO.94, 1ST AVENUE TEACHERS COLONY KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK BANGALORE - 560 034. 9. SRIDHARA RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O RANGAPPA K R/AT NO. 278-L NEAR EDIGESH MASHUGIRI REDDIHALLI, TUMKUR KARNATAKA- 572 133. 10. MOHAMMED FAZAL ULLA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED NOORULLA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8879 WP No. 23066 of 2022 R/AT NO. 2630/1, 23RD WEST CROSS EREKATTE STREET, LASHKAR MOHALLA ASHOKA ROAD, MYSORE. 11. HUMAYUN ALI BAIG AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O JAFFER BAIG NO. 2630/1, 23RD WEST CROSS, EREKATTE STREET, LASHKAR MOHALLA ASHOKA ROAD, MYSORE. 12. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O B. RANGAIAH R/AT NO. 2553, 2ND FLOOR 22ND CROSS BANASHANKARI, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU 560 070. 13. ANKIREDDYPALLI RAVI SANKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O A. KRISHNA REDDY R/AT NO. 4-121, VENKATASAI NAGAR G.V. SATRAM, NANDYALAMPETE CUDDAPAH, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516 172. 14. DIWAKARA BABU N M AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O S. NAGARAJA R/AT NO.3, SURABHI 28TH MAIN ROAD, A R LAYOUT MUNIYAPPA GARDEN BENGALURU - 560 078. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAGAR R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEEPAK B.(VC),ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8879 WP No. 23066 of 2022 AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020. 3. THE ENGINEER MEMBER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH RAOD, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHA RAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K. KRISHNA.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CANCELLATION/WITHD!RAWAL DATED 11.10.2022 OF E-AUCTION NOTIFICATION DATED 14.07.2022 BEARING NO.BDA/EM/E-AUCTION/T-03-2022-23 IN RESPECT OF THOSE SITES SUCCESSFULLY BID BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8879 WP No. 23066 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Petitioners who are the successful bidders in the e- auction that was conducted on 06.08.2022 at 6.00 p.m. by the respondent No.2 in respect of site at Sl.No.210 to 278 of the revised e-auction notification issued by the respondent No.3 dated 14.07.2022, are before this Court challenging the withdrawal of the earlier e-auction notice. 2. Case of the petitioners is that petitioners had already paid EMD amount to the respondent No.1 and since that they were declared as successful bidders the respondent- authorities without any justifiable reason ought not have cancel the auction. Hence, the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA drawing attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 3 of the statement of objections submits that e-auction dated 14.07.2022 had to be recalled on account of error in publication of notifications giving two different dates. He submits while publishing the e-auction notification the closing date and time was though correctly mentioned in the English daily newspaper, however, due to in advertence a bonafide mistake crept in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8879 WP No. 23066 of 2022 while giving the last date and closing hours in the notification published in the Kannada daily newspaper. In that while in English daily newspaper closing date and time was mentioned as 06.08.2022 at 6.00 p.m. and in Kannada notification the closing date and time was mentioned as 08.08.2022 at 6.00 p.m. In view of this variation several bidders had lodged complaints objecting for further proceeding with the said e- auction process and sought for calling for fresh e-auction. It is under these circumstances and to provide equal opportunity to all the aspirants the respondent-BDA had decided to recall the notification and e-auction that was conducted pursuant to the notification dated 14.07.2022 and had also resolved that EMD amount and any other amount deposited by the bidders including the petitioners to be refunded. Counsel for the respondent-BDA further submits that petitioners are entitled for participation in e-auction to be conducted afresh. 4. Heard. Perused the records. 5. Though the petitioners claim to have been the successful bidders seeking for further continuation of the auction, under the aforesaid factual circumstances of the matter, this Court do not see reason to insist the respondent- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8879 WP No. 23066 of 2022 BDA to accept the biddings and to conclude the proceedings in terms of the e-auction notification dated 14.07.2022, inasmuch as, admittedly the respondent-BDA has claimed that due to inadvertence, two different dates of closing of the e-auction was published. In view of this admitted apparent and manifest error on the part of the respondent –BDA in publishing two different dates and time in respect of the very same auction, no fault or irregularity can be found in respondent-BDA resolving to withdraw the process of e-auction as per the notification dated 14.07.2022 and in furtherance to refund the amount paid by the participants including the petitioners and to call for fresh e-tendering. 6. Reserving liberty to the petitioners to participate in such e-auction as and when called for by the respondent-BDA, petition is disposed of. Petitioners are at liberty to receive the money which have already paid to the respondent-BDA in terms of the aforesaid e-auction notification dated 14.07.2022. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36