- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33629-DB WA No. 517 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 517 OF 2025 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MUNIRAJU C N, S/O NAGARAJU. V, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 148, 4TH CROSS, BDA, LINK ROAD, BANASHANKARI, 6TH STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALURU-560 098. 2. SRI SRIKANTH. N. S, S/O N. V. SREERAMAIAH SEETY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 377, SAMRUDDHI, 1ST FLOOR, AREHALLI, AGS., LAYOUT, BANGALURU-560 061. 3. SRI NAMA SREERAMAIAH KISHORE, S/O N. V. SREERAMAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 377, 2ND FLOOR, 22ND MAIN, AREAHALLI, AGS LAYOUT, BANGALURU-560 061. 4. SRI HARSHA B. R, S/O B. M. S. RUDRASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3680/6, MEDICAL HOSPETIAL ROAD, MCC, B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577 004. 5. SRI GIRISH MULGUND, S/O SANKANNA MULGUND, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33629-DB WA No. 517 of 2025 R/AT NO. 202, DEVIMAA NILAYA, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, GIRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BANGALURU-560 085. 6. SIR VINESH RADHAKRISHNA KAMAT, S/O RADHAKRISHNA KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO. 216, NELLIKERI POST, KUMTA TA-KUMTA, UTTARA KANNADA, KARNATAKA - 560 050. 7. MR. AVINASH A. S, S/O A. SUBBARAYADU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 508-1, 2ND MAIN ROAD, BSK, 2ND STAGE, BANASHANKARI, BANGALURU-560050. 8. SRI MAHANTESH SAVANTRI, S/O BASAVANT SAVANTRI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. 94, 1ST AVENUE TEACHERS COLONY, KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK, BANGALURU-560 034. 9. SRI. SRIDHARA RANGAPPA, S/O RANGAPPA. K, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 278 - L, NEAR EDIGESH MASHUGIRI, REDDIHALLI, TUMKUR, KARNATAKA -572133. 10. SIR MOHAMMED FAZAL ULLA, S/O MOHAMMED NOORULLA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2630/1, 23RD WEST CROSS, EREKATTE STREET, LASHKAR MOHALLA, ASHOKA ROAD, MYSURU-5700. 11. SIR. HUMAYUN ALI BAIG, S/O JAFFER BAIG, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2630/1, 23RD WEST CROSS, EREKATTE STREET, LASHKAR MOHALLA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33629-DB WA No. 517 of 2025 ASHOKA ROAD, MYSURU-5700. 12. SIR B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O B. RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2553, 2ND FLOOR, 22ND CROSS, BANASHANKARI, 2ND STAGE, D BENGALURU-560070. 13. SIR ANKIREDDYPALLI RAVI SHANKAR REDDY, S/O KRIHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4-121, VENKATA SAI NAGAR, G. V. SATRAM, NANDYALAMPETE, CUDDAPAH, ANDHRA PRADESH-516 172. 14. SIR DIWAKARA BABU N. M, S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3, SURABHI, 28TH MAIN ROAD, AR., LAYOUT MUNIYAPPA GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560078. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K R LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP., BY ITS ADDL., CHIEF SECRETARY, AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MS., BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. 3. THE ENGINEER MEMBER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33629-DB WA No. 517 of 2025 BENGALURU -560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S HARISH, G.A FOR R-1; SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & 3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No- 23066/2022 (BDA) AND BY ALLOWING THE WP AS PRAYED FOR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellants have filed the present appeal, impugning an order dated 28.02.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23066/2022 [BDA] captioned Muniraju C.N and Ors. v/s. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2. The appellants had preferred the said Writ Petition, impugning the order dated 11.10.2022, whereby the e-auction notification dated 14.07.2022 in respect of certain sites was cancelled by the Bangalore Development Authority [BDA]. The appellants had participated in the e-auction, which was conducted - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33629-DB WA No. 517 of 2025 on 06.08.2022 at 06.00 p.m., pursuant to the Notification dated 14.07.2022. They had also furnished the EMD and there is no dispute regarding the conduct of the auction. Notwithstanding that the appellants had succeeded in the e-auction and had complied with the conditions, the sale of the subject sites were not confirmed in their favour and the notification was withdrawn. 3. The BDA had cancelled the e-auction, on account of an error in publication of the Notification. Whilst the Notification published in the English daily newspaper had correctly mentioned the date of auction as "06.08.2022". The Notification issued in the Kannada daily newspaper had incorrectly mentioned the date of auction as "08.08.2022" instead of "06.08.2022". According to BDA, the error was a bona fide error. However, the same had resulted in less than full participation in the auction. It is also contended on behalf of BDA that it had received complaints from various prospective bidders who were unable to participate in the e-auction. 4. In the given circumstance of the case, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition with the observations that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33629-DB WA No. 517 of 2025 the appellants were at liberty to withdraw the amounts already paid in terms of the e-auction. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that although, it was contended on behalf of BDA that it had received complaints from various prospective bidders, BDA had not produced any documents to establish the same. 6. There is no dispute that the auction notices issued by BDA specified two different dates for the auction. The said flaw strikes at the root of the auction process, as it would have excluded the bidders who had proceeded on the basis that the auction would be conducted at a later date. Plainly, this error cannot be rectified. Thus, it would be necessary for BDA to conduct a re-auction of the subject sites. Consequently, the sales of the subject sites in favour of the appellants were not confirmed. 7. In the given facts, we find no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ petition preferred by the appellants. 8. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33629-DB WA No. 517 of 2025 9. Pending application is also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37