Sri K.R. Manjunath vs Mysore Urban Development Authority its Commissioner

D.H. Waghela, C.J.—The appellant has sought to challenge the order dated 13.08.2013 of learned Single Judge of this Court and after arguments and citing two judgments of the Supreme Court, learned counsel has prayed for permitting withdrawal of the original petition itself. The original petition filed before learned Single Judge invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a direction to the respondent to receive the balance auction amount with interest and to execute registered sale deed in respect of a site in favour of the petitioner/appellant herein. The undisputed facts of the case are that petitioner was an auction purchaser for site bearing No. 372 admeasuring 103.45 sq. mtr. at the auction held on 26.07.2012, which auction sale was confirmed on 18.08.2013. According to the conditions stipulated in the auction, the petitioner had deposited 25% of the total amount, but remaining 75% of the amount was not paid. Therefore, the petitioner had requested the respondent to permit him to deposit the remaining amount with interest at 18% p.a., but the representation therefor dated 03.07.2013, was not considered, according to the petitioner.

As recorded in the impugned order, the remaining amount of 75% of the auction sale was required to be deposited in accordance with Rule 6(3)(c) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1991 (for short ''the Rules'') and the time for making the remaining payment was infact extended upto 06.01.2013. However, the petitioner had neither made such payment nor even made a request for further extension of time as required under Rule 6(3)(d) of the Rules.

Obviously, to make a representation after above sequence of events, as late as in July 2013 and approaching this Court immediately in August 2013 was calculated to overcome the rigour of the statutory provisions.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Jasbir Singh Bakshi Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others, and Jasbir Kaur Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others, in support of the submission that a sympathetic view ought to be taken, in view of the fact that the appellant was facing cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of 25% of the total amount already paid, as per the Rules. It, however, appears from the record and submission of the respondent, recorded in the impugned order that the respondent has already decided to cancel the allotment and also to forfeit the deposit of 25% as per the Rules and the only formality that remained was, service of such an order upon the original petitioner. In the above facts and circumstances and in the absence of any legal proposition laid down in the aforesaid decisions relied upon for the appellant, grant of any relief or even entertaining the appeal would really amount to indirectly interfering with the decision already taken by the respondent, upon admitted default of the appellant in making the remaining payment. The request for allowing withdrawal of the original petition itself is declined in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, for being far from bona fide and an attempt at indirectly circumventing the order of the High Court obtained by the petitioner in his own petition. Therefore, the appeal is summarily dismissed along with the interim application made therein, with no order as to cost.