- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33291 WP No. 12798 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12798 OF 2023 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. PRAVEEN HEGDE R S/O MANJUNATHA KRISHNA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A NO.49, CHINMAYA RADHAKRISHNA NAGAR DHARWAD KARNATAKA-580 003 PRESENTLY R/AT. NO.944, FLAT NO.102 11TH MAIN ROAD, SRINAGAR BSK 1ST STAGE BENGALURU-560 050 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEVENDRA N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT . AUTHORITY (BDA) T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. ACCOUNTS OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33291 WP No. 12798 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE DEMAND LETTER BEARING NO.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/D¸À/E- ºÀgÁdÄ/SMVL-2/1672/2023-24 DATED 06.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-A HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS.56,712/- SOUGHT FROM THE PETITIONER IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND UNTENABLE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the demand letter bearing No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/D¸À/E-ºÀgÁdÄ/SMVL-2/1672/2023-24 dated 06.05.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 claiming interest of Rs.56,712/- and to direct the respondent No.1 to issue a sale certificate of site No.1672 situated at Sir.M.V.Layout, 2nd Block, Bengaluru. 2. The petitioner participated in an E-auction dated 14.07.2022 conducted by the respondent No.1 in respect of site No.1672 situated at Sir.M.V.Layout, 2nd Block, Bengaluru. The petitioner was the successful bidder and he deposited Rs.14,24,930/- vide challan dated 12.09.2022, which - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33291 WP No. 12798 of 2023 constituted 25% of the bid amount. The balance 75% was to be deposited within 45 days from 16.11.2022. The petitioner claims that the respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 16.11.2022 informed him that he can avail a loan to pay the remaining bid amount of Rs.54,01,793/-, but this was of no avail, as by that time a person named Smt.Hemalatha had filed W.P.No.18988/2022 and she was granted a stay regarding auction of site No.1672. The petitioner contends that the pendency of the said writ petition was prominently written and officials of the funding bank after coming to know of the Writ Petition had called upon the petitioner to produce proof of the dissolution of the interim stay granted in W.P.No.18988/2022. The petitioner therefore sought time till the disposal of W.P.No.18988/2022. 3. The petitioner claims that he attempted to implead himself in W.P.No.18988/2022 and his application was allowed by this Court. The petitioner claims that as he was impleaded in W.P.No.18988/2022, he was bound by interim order granted in the said Writ Petition and therefore, he was not in a position to pay the balance 75% of the auction price. Thereafter, at his - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33291 WP No. 12798 of 2023 instance the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.No.18988/2022 was vacated. He contends that W.P.No.18988/2022 was dismissed on 14.12.2022 and thereafter, he deposited 75% of the auction price on 20.01.2023. The respondent No.1 after receiving the entire auction price, raised a demand calling upon the petitioner to pay interest of Rs.56,712/- without specifying any reason. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is therefore before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the auction was held on 14.07.2022, while the interim order in W.P.No.18988/2022 was passed on 22.09.2022. He contends that the petitioner deposited 25% of the auction price on 09.09.2022 and the respondents had granted time of 45 days from 16.11.2022 to pay the balance amount and that the balance amount was paid on 20.01.2023. He contends that in view of the stay granted in W.P.No.18988/2022, the petitioner was not in a position to pay the balance price. He therefore, contends that he is not bound to pay a sum of Rs.56,712/- demanded by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33291 WP No. 12798 of 2023 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the other hand contended that when the auction was held on 14.07.2022, there was no stay granted by the Court and the interim stay granted in W.P.No.18988/2022 was only on 22.09.2022. He submits that the petitioner was bound to pay 75% of the bid amount within 45 days from the date of the auction confirmation and that the petitioner did not pay the said amount but paid the same after a delay of nearly 27 days. He therefore contends that the interest demanded by the respondent No.1 is in accordance with the auction confirmation letter as well as the terms of the auction and hence, no indulgence be granted to the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 7. The petitioner participated in the E-auction knowing fully well the terms of the auction. He was expected to deposit 25% of the auction bid amount on the same day and the balance 75% within 45 days from the date of confirmation. In the instant case, before a letter of confirmation could be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33291 WP No. 12798 of 2023 granted, interim order of stay of the auction proceedings was passed in W.P.No.18988/2022. The petitioner thereafter deposited the balance bid amount on 20.01.2023. There was no impediment for the petitioner to deposit the said amount although there was an interim stay granted in W.P.No.18988/2022. The petitioner was also aware of the terms and conditions of the auction confirmation vide letter dated 16.11.2022, which is much after the interim stay granted by the Court in W.P.No.18988/2022. Therefore, the petitioner cannot escape the liability to pay interest as demanded by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4