- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54177 WP No. 17058 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 17058 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NANJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O NANJE GOWDA ADVOCATE R/AT NO MF 10/5 BDA APARATMENT, BTM 2ND STAGE NEAR MICO LAYOUT TRAFFIC POLICE STATION BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KASHINATH J D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER JLB ROAD MYSORE - 570 005. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T P, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. My.Na.Praa/A.Shaa/P.R- 85/2022-23 DATED 05.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54177 WP No. 17058 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the Endorsement dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent – Corporation. 3. Having taken note of the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, the claim of the petitioner in this petition is to seek interest in respect of the deposit made by the petitioner for allotment of the site in question. In this regard learned counsel representing the respondent-Corporation Sri.Vivekananda.T.P., invited the attention of this Court to Annexure-R1 dated 19.09.2011 wherein clause 11 stipulates that, in the event, if, the site is not allotted in favour of the applicants, such applicants are not entitled for interest in so far as the deposit made by them for allotment of site is concerned. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54177 WP No. 17058 of 2022 4. In that view of the matter no interference is called for in this petition, as the contractual obligation is created between the parties. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32