K BABJAN Vs. SHIMOGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) In these writ petitions, the petitioners seek declaration that Rule 6(3)(d) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1991 (for short "the Rules") is ultra virus the Constitution and is in conflict with Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to refund an amount of Rs.1,86,250/-and Rs. 1,56,500/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till the date of payment.

(3.) The petitioners had participated in an auction of site/s by making a payment of Rs. 10,000/- by way of deposit, as contemplated by clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules, in response to the advertisement dated 18.7.2008. They, being the highest bidders, their bid was accepted. They, accordingly, deposited 25% of the bid amount on the spot as contemplated by Clause (b), sub-rule 3 of Rule 6 of the Rules. They were supposed to pay the balance 75% of the bid amount within 45 days from the date of receipt of an intimation letter. The first petitioner being the highest bidder in respect of site No.F-87, had paid 25% of the bid value i.e., Rs. 1,86,250/-. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of site No.F-88 and he had paid 25% of the bid value i.e., Rs. 1,56,500/-. They did not pay the balance amount within the stipulated time and in view thereof the respondents forfeited the amount paid by the petitioners as provided for under Clause (b) of sub-Rule 3 of Rule 6 thereof.