LINGARAJ V HIREMATH Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr.Jambayya Swamy Hiremath learned counsel appearing for petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Shivakumar Malipatil appearing for respondents 2 to 6.

(2.) A paper publication came to be issued on 30.07.2017 by sixth respondent inviting application from general public to participate in an open auction to be held on 07.08.2007 in respect of corner sites formed in the layout of Vijayapura, Basavanabagewadi, Nidagunda and Muddebihal I-Phase. As per terms and conditions stipulated in the said notification petitioners herein deposited earnest money of Rs.30,000.00 each to participate in an open auction and accordingly auction came to be held on 07.08.2017 at 11.00 a.m. in the office of sixth respondent. The reserved price fixed in respect of four sites which were put to auction and the bid offered by petitioners are as under :-

(3.) Petitioners herein being declared as the highest bidder have deposited 25% of total bid amount with sixth respondent as per the conditions stipulated. Subsequently, sixth respondent intimated fifth respondent by forwarding the proceedings of auction held on 07.08.2017 by communication dated 09.08.2017-Annexure-C for its approval. Simultaneously, sixth respondent also submitted the proposal of auction proceedings held on 07.08.2017 to fourth respondent by communication dated 13.07.2017 Annexure-D which was put up before third respondent as per Annexure-D. The sixth respondent by communication dated 17.08.2017 addressed to second respondent enclosed therewith auction proceedings for its consideration. Subsequently, nothing was heard by the petitioners from respondents 2 to 6. However, by communication dated 22.06.2018 Annexure-F sixth respondent intimated the petitioners about return of amount deposited by them with the Housing Board. In other words the auction proceedings which were conducted on 07.08.2017 was not taken to its logical end. Hence, petitioners are before this Court, contending inter alia that without assessing any reason the amounts deposited by the petitioners pursuant to auction have been returned and auction conducted being not found fault with by respondents 2 to 6, they could not have unilaterally returned the amounts paid by petitioners that too without assigning any reason whatsoever.