S MAHESHA Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On his alleged failure to pay the balance amount in respect of auction Site No. 581 at BSK III Stage, layout, the appellant was served with the show-cause notice as to why the auction sale made in his favour should not be cancelled and action be taken as per Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Sites) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter called the 'Rules'). After consideration of his reply the respondents declined to send a copy of the confirmation letter afresh and rejected his prayer for allotment of the site referred to herein above.

(2.) The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that as the appellant had not deposited the balance of the bid amount within 45 days from the date of confirmation no relief could be granted to him in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) It is conceded before us that after the allotment of the auctioned Site No. 581, BSK III Stage, layout, the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- on 15-2-1991. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the rules it was provided that the auction purchaser whose bid is accepted was to deposit 25% of the amount of his bid at once on the spot and pay the balance within 45 days from the date of intimation letter as in Form No. 1 communicating confirmation of sale. In default of payment of balance amount, 25% initially deposited was liable to be forfeited to the Authorities who were entitled to resell the site for which the defaulting auction purchaser was liable to make good any loss suffered by authorities on account of any such sale. The plea of the appellant is that the letter of confirmation was never received by him and that after the receipt of the show-cause notice, Annexure-C, he had intimated the respondent-Authorities that he was prepared to pay the balance amount within 45 days. The plea of the appellant was not accepted on the ground that the letter of confirmation stood served upon him and despite service he did not deposit the balance amount within the time specified. It is conceded before us that the confirmation letter dated 21-3-1991 was not personally served upon the appellant. The said letter is reported to have been served upon the father of the appellant on the address allegedly furnished by the appellant. It is also conceded before us that neither under the Act nor under the rules any specific mode is prescribed for the service of the letter on the successful bidder. From Annexure-D it appears that the appellant had furnished two addresses, one being his permanent address and the other the temporary address for correspondence. Show-cause notice Annexure-C is admitted to have been served upon the appellant on his temporary address furnished for correspondence and the confirmation letter is alleged to have been served on his permanent address. The respondents have not assigned any valid reasons for service of two letters at two different places. From the objections filed by the respondents it transpires that the letters sent to the Appellant on 30-7-1991 asking him to produce remittance particulars to Bangalore Development Authority was returned undelivered by postal authorities with remarks 'Not claimed'. Subsequently, the same endorsement was sent through Revenue Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, which were returned undelivered with remarks that the 'addressee is not residing in the said address'. It was reported that addressee was said to be residing in Udayapura, Kasaba Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk. Admittedly, the letter of confirmation was not served upon the appellant at Udayapura in Channarayapatna Taluk address.