( 1 ) WRIT Appeal Nos. 5579-5582/2001 are filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 23-8-2001 passed in W. P. Nos. 27118/2000 C/w W. P. Nos. 27119, 27120/2000 and 27020/2000. Other writ appeals i. e. , W. A. No. 6171/2001 and 7041/2001 are also pending and the points involved are similar and identical. ( 2 ) IT is not necessary to deal with the facts of each case as the main controversy is same and identical. The necessary facts as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants are that in pursuance of notification dated 4-8-2001/7-5-2001, they had participated in the auction held on 26-4-2001/16-5-2001 in respect of a corner site and certain shops respectively. After initial deposit of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively, they participated in the auction and they being the highest bidders deposited 25% of the bid amount. ( 3 ) IT was alleged by the appellant-petitioners, in the writ petition that instead of granting time to deposit the balance amount cancellation notice dated 18-7-2000 and 16-6-2001 was issued as per Annexure-C and F stating that auction is cancelled and they could participate in the next auction. The appellants challenged the same by filing various writ petitions. ( 4 ) STATEMENTS of objections were filed by the respondent, the Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority ('muda' for short) denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It was stated that under Rule 6 (2) (c) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1991, intimation to deposit balance of the amount should be sent in Form 1 and only after the respondent Authority confirm the acceptance of the bid, under Rule 7, the Authority shall have the right to confirm any sale in the auction. It was stated that if thereafter the respondent Authority cancelled the auction sale, then reasons are necessary to be recorded and the amount so deposited will be refunded. But, in the instant case, they have not confirmed the auction sale and it not being a concluded contract the petitioners had no right to invoke the writ jurisdiction and it is also stated that in some cases they have not got the full price so auction was cancelled and with an intimation that they can participate in the next auction. ( 5 ) THE learned single Judge on consideration found that it was not a case of concluded contract and the appellants had no subsisting rights and therefore no relief could be granted and accordingly writ petitions were dismissed. The same is being challenged by filing various writ appeals. ( 6 ) WHILE issuing notice in W. A. 6171/2001 (against the order dated 13-9-2001 in W. P. No. 25950/2001) this Court on 18-10-2001 ordered stay of further proceedings pursuant to notice dated 16-6-2001 in No. 2000, 2001 issued by the respondent. ( 7 ) W. A. Nos. 5579-5582/2001, against the order dated 23-8-2001 in W. P. Nos. 27118, 27119, 27120 and 27020/2000, was filed. Counsel relied on the order of the co-ordinate Bench passed on 18-10-2001 in W. A. No. 6171/2001. This Court while considering the order of co-ordinate Bench, on 9-11-2001 ordered that, re-auction of the shops in so far as the appellants are concerned, if not already held, is stayed for a period of three weeks. Thereafter, the same was extended by one week on 4-1-2002. ( 8 ) IN W. A. No. 7041/2001 (against the order dated 9-10-2001 in W. P. 27224/2001) further auction of site was stayed until further orders vide order dated 20-12-2001. ( 9 ) TODAY, the matter has come up before us and on consideration, we are not inclined to extend the stay order in W. As. 5579-5582/2001 and W. A. No. 7041/2001. However, Mr. Shailendra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that cases can be heard finally. Other counsel for the appellants also agreed. The counsel for the respondent-MUDA has no objection. As agreed, matter is finally heard. ( 10 ) THE main grievance of the appellants is that they having participated in the auction and being declared as highest bidders they paid 25% of the bid amount and they have a right and therefore the sale cannot be cancelled without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the cancellation order and the order of the learned single Judge are liable to be set aside. ( 11 ) WE have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials placed on record. ( 12 ) A perusal of the auction notice reveals that Rs. Therefore, the cancellation order and the order of the learned single Judge are liable to be set aside. ( 11 ) WE have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials placed on record. ( 12 ) A perusal of the auction notice reveals that Rs. 5,000,000 is necessary for participation and 25% is to be paid by the highest bidder at the time of auction and thereafter he must deposit the balance within 45 days. If any condition is violated the authorities are free to forfeit the amount. Further a perusal of S. 5 makes it clear after depositing the full amount they will execute an agreement in Form No. 2 and thereafter the authority has to confirm the sale and if the sale is confirmed the authority shall not cancel it. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any confirmation of the sale the appellants have no subsisting right. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that it is a concluded contract. The learned single Judge has not interfered in the writ petition. That apart, after confirmation of sale, if it is cancelled the aggrieved party has to file a revision as per provisions and the writ is not maintainable. ( 13 ) AS per the facts culled out, the appellants applied in view of the tender notice and they were the highest bidders but their sale is not confirmed and as such they have no subsisting right. More so they will be governed by the conditions of auction. A perusal of the notification reveals that no one has a right to question in this regard. As stated, the appellants have no subsisting right and the writ is not maintainable to set aside the contractual liability. The only remedy is to file a civil suit or to seek remedy before the Arbitrator, if there is any clause provided in the contract. In the matter of commercial transaction, one cannot invoke Article 226 of the Constitution, but it can only be invoked if there is any mala fide or if it violates the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. The counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any mala fide or any subsisting right. As stated, no direction can be issued for want of subsisting rights. The counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any mala fide or any subsisting right. As stated, no direction can be issued for want of subsisting rights. ( 14 ) IN any view of the matter and as discussed above, we find no error or illegality in the order of the learned single Judge so as to call for interference. Writ Appeals stand dismissed. Interim order stands discharged and the authorities are free to conduct re-auction and the appellants are permitted to participate in the re-auction in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .