- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18304 WP No. 104900 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 104900 OF 2021 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: CHIDANAND, S/O. SHANTAPPA CHIMMANAKATTI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: LIG 17, 5TH CROSS NAVANAGAR TQ: HUBLI, DIST:DHARWAD-580001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, HUBLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 3. BABUSAB NADAF, NO.16 HDUDA LAYOUT, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:04 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18304 WP No. 104900 of 2021 2ND CROSS, SADAD COLONY, OLD HUBBALLI, DEVARGUDIHAL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADV. FOR R2; SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADV. FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE LIST OF ALLOTMENT IN SO FAR SERIAL NO.84 PERTAINING TO ALLOTMENT OF SITE / HOUSE BEARING NO.78 (EWS) SITUATED AT NAVANAGAR 1ST PHASE IN FAVOUR OF 3RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE – “D” ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18304 WP No. 104900 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing Annexure-D insofar as the allotment of site at Sl.No.84. 2. Annexure-D is the list of sites allotted by Hubballi- Dharwad Municipal Corporation (‘HDMC’, for short) pursuant to e-Auction conducted by HDMC. The terms and conditions of e-Auction are marked at Annexure-A. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the e-Auction and his bid was for ₹26,50,736/- for Site No.78 referred to in Annexure-D at Sl.No.84. 4. Referring to Clause No.18 in the e-auction condition, it is urged that the minimum difference between two bids has to be ₹50/- per square feet and considering the extent of the property bearing Site No.78 which measured 800 square feet, the difference amount should have been ₹40,000/-. The bid of the respondent No.3 which is ₹1,000/- more than the bid of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18304 WP No. 104900 of 2021 petitioner, is impermissible and the site could not have been allotted to respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation would urge that these terms and conditions of e-Auction are formulated by National Informatics Centre and the auction is conducted as per the terms and conditions. 6. Learned respondent No.3 would submit that under Clause No.17 of the said e-Auction conditions, 3rd respondent who is one of the participants in the bid is enabled to improve the bid by a minimum of ₹1,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply would contend that Clauses No.17 and 18 cannot reconcile and the allocation in favour of the 3rd respondent has to be cancelled and petitioner should be allotted the site. In the alternative, it is urged that there has to be a fresh auction in respect of the Site No.78. 8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18304 WP No. 104900 of 2021 9. As can be noticed from the e-Auction conditions, Clause No.17 would enable the participant in the auction to improve the bid amount by ₹1,000/-. However, Clause No.18 would indicate that the difference between two bids should be ₹50/- per square feet. It appears that there is a conflict between Clause No.17 and Clause No.18. However, what is required to be noticed is the petitioner was not prevented from improving his bid by ₹1,000/- by invoking Clause No.17. The petitioner has not questioned Clauses No.17 and 18, and the petitioner should have challenged the terms and conditions of the e-Auction. The petitioner is taking shelter under Clause No.18 which suits his contention and it is not his case (as per the grounds urged in the petition) that he would have increase the bid amount by Rs.1,000/- and he did not opt to do so because of Clause No.18. 10. It is to be noticed that in e-Auction the participations will come to know the bid amount of other participants. Thus, the Court can assume that the petitioner was aware that respondent has improved the bid by Rs.1,000/-. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18304 WP No. 104900 of 2021 11. That being the position, this Court does not find any reason to set aside the auction in favour of the 3rd respondent whose bid admittedly is more than that of the petitioner. 12. Under these circumstances, the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is dismissed. ii) The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be returned to the petitioner within 1 month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. iii) In case, the amount is not repaid within 1 month, the amount shall carry interest at rate of 6% per annum, from today till repayment. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK CT:CNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74