AJIT J. GUNJAL, J, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the auction notice dated 07. 06. 2002, Annexure-Q insofar as it relates to item No. 9. e. , 370, 4th Block, Koramangala. According to the petitioner, the said auction is illegal and arbitrary. ( 2 ) THE proceedings have a chequered career. Few facts are necessary to be stated to appreciate the controversy in question. ( 3 ) THE site in question which is a comer site was publicly auctioned on 14. 11. 1988. The petitioner was the highest bidder and offered rs. 2090 per sq. mtrs. aggregating to Rs. 8,46,817. 20ps. It is the case of the petitioner that he deposited a sum of Rs. 2. 12 lakhs towards 25% of the sale consideration. The balance of the sale consideration was required to be remitted within 45 days,. e. , by 30. 12. 1988. On 06. 12. 1988, when the petitioner was to deposit the balance of sale consideration, there was an advertisement in the Deccan Herald stated to have been issued by the Executive Engineer of Bangalore development Authority to the effect that the sale held on 14. 11. 1988 stood cancelled since the said site was already auctioned in the year 1978 and one Sri M. Hanumanthu had purchased the site and is now the owner. Copy of the same is produced at Annexure-F. Bangalore development Authority issued a caution notice on 15. 12. 1988. e. , within a span of 9 days stating that the advertisement issued on 06. 12. 1988 was not issued from the office of the Bangalore development Authority nor from the office of the Executive Engineer and the same has been issued at the behest of certain persons with a view to knock of the valuable property. The Bangalore Development authority also reiterated that the auction held on 14. 11. 1988 in favour of the petitioner does not stand rescinded. Annexure-E is the subsequent notice issued by the Bangalore Development Authority. On 02. 06. 1989, the respondent Bangalore Development Authority confirmed the site in favour of the petitioner and also the receipt of rs. 2. 12 lakhs which is the initial deposit after the auction. The respondent-Bangalore Development Authority called upon the petitioner to deposit the balance of sale consideration of rs. 6,34,817. On 02. 06. 1989, the respondent Bangalore Development Authority confirmed the site in favour of the petitioner and also the receipt of rs. 2. 12 lakhs which is the initial deposit after the auction. The respondent-Bangalore Development Authority called upon the petitioner to deposit the balance of sale consideration of rs. 6,34,817. 20ps, a copy of the said communication is produced at annexure-A. The petitioner, pursuant to a letter dated 08. 07. 1989, brought these anomalies regarding the auction held on 14. 11. 1988 and the earlier alleged auction in the year 1978 and sought for return of the initial deposit of Rs. 2. 12 lakhs. The respondent reiterated that the site has not been sold in favour of Sri Hanumanthu and called upon the petitioner to remit the balance of the sale consideration. Incidentally, it is to be noticed that in the letter issued by the petitioner to the respondent, in no uncertain terms, a statement was made requesting the respondent to remit the initial deposit along with interest and also damages. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed a complaint before the State Consumer disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint No. 225/91. It appears, a statement was made before the Commissioner that the auction sale held on 14. 11. 1988 will be given effect to. It appears, on the statement made by the counsel appearing for the respondent, the complaint was withdrawn. The petitioner kept quiet for a period of 2 years and expressed his willingness to remit the balance of consideration pursuant to Annexure-J dated 16. 03. 1993. It is the case of the petitioner that he was once again constrained to file yet another complaint before the commission against the Bangalore Development Authority which came to be dismissed on 25. 07. 2000 as not maintainable in view of the decision rendered in Complaint No. 225/91. On 11. 09. 2001, yet another representation was given requesting the respondent to accept the balance of sale consideration after the cancelling of the sale deed in favour of Sri Hanumanthu. The respondent, it appears, by way of abundant caution, cancelled the sale deed dated 06. 04. 1976 executed in favour of Sri Hanumanthu. It appears, during this interregnum, the site in question was brought to auction. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 118/02 challenging the auction notice. The respondent, it appears, by way of abundant caution, cancelled the sale deed dated 06. 04. 1976 executed in favour of Sri Hanumanthu. It appears, during this interregnum, the site in question was brought to auction. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 118/02 challenging the auction notice. Suffice it to say that the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. The respondent therein issued another auction notice. Hence the petitioner being aggrieved by the auction notice is before this Court in this petition. ( 5 ) PURSUANT to the notice issued, the respondents have entered appearance and have filed statement of objections. They would inter alia contend that it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the respondent should accept the balance of sale consideration and execute the sale deed. They would submit that the auction had taken place way back in the year 1988 and it is too late in the day for them to contend that the balance should be accepted. They would also contend that notwithstanding several requests made to the petitioner to remit the balance of consideration, the petitioner has not chosen to do so. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs. They would also contend that pursuant to a letter, the petitioner has sought for refund of the money, which would necessarily mean that he had backed out from the auction. ( 6 ) MS. Aparanji Dinakar, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the petitioner has been knocking the doors of all available forums for the redressal of his grievance. She would submit that it is a clear case of legitimate expectation, inasmuch as, at every point of time, the respondent had assured that they would accept the money and execute the sale deed. She would also submit that having regard to the fact that there was a cloud on the title of the Bangalore Development Authority in view of the publication made in Deccan Herald indicating that the site has been sold in a public auction in favour of one Sri Hanumanthu in the year 1978, that itself, according to her, is a good ground for not depositing the balance of sale consideration. She would also contend that in the complaint before the Consumer Forum, the respondent had bound themselves by stating that they would execute the necessary sale deed in respect of the site in question. Hence the respondent is estopped from contending to the contrary. She would also submit that the representation which is given by the petitioner has not been considered and assuming that it is considered, the said communication is not received by the petitioner. ( 7 ) MR. ABDUL Khader, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would reiterate what has been stated in the statement of objections and would further contend that a concession which is made by the counsel is not binding on the authority. He would also submit that since the petitioner had sought for return of the initial deposit, it is not open for him to contend now that he was always ready and willing to deposit the balance of sale consideration. ( 8 ) APPARENTLY, the petitioner has slept over his rights. Even assuming that the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked in some cases, but it is not a case where indeed, the said doctrine could be invoked in favour of the petitioner. The auction was held on 14. 11. 1988 and the petitioner was expected to deposit the balance of sale consideration on or before 30. 12. 1988. But however, he has taken shelter under the advertisement which appeared in the Deccan herald which is alleged to have been issued by the respondent. Ultimately, the petitioner came to know that such an advertisement did not generate from the office of the respondent. If really, the petitioner was interested in enforcing his rights in respect of the site in question, he ought to have deposited the amount when he was called upon by the respondent to deposit which was on 02. 06. 1991. But however, he does not choose to do so. On the contrary, he issues a communication/letter to the respondent calling upon them to return the entire money of Rs. 2. 12 lakhs along with interest as well as damages. 06. 1991. But however, he does not choose to do so. On the contrary, he issues a communication/letter to the respondent calling upon them to return the entire money of Rs. 2. 12 lakhs along with interest as well as damages. Whatever little right on which the doctrine of legitimate expectation could have been invoked has been lost because of the letter at annexure-H. That apart, even after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Consumer forum, assuming that the respondent could be bound by the statement made by its counsel before the Commission, the petitioner chose to remain silent. e. , from 16. 03. 1993 till he filed the second complaint. At any point of time, the petitioner has not evinced any interest in depositing the balance of sale consideration. Indeed, the respondent has rescinded the sale deed in favour of Sri hanumanthu in the year 2001. But however, that was by way of abundant caution. As early as on 15. 12. 1988, the respondent had issued a clarificatory notification indicating that the notification issued on 06. 12. 1988 was accentuated by malafides and at the behest of certain miscreants. When that is the case, nothing prevented the petitioner from depositing the sale consideration. Even otherwise, rule 6 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules 1984, would contemplate that the balance of amount shall be deposited within a period of 45 days. The said rules are mandatory in nature and no discretion vests with the respondent to extend the time. In fact, they are in parimateria with order 21 Rules 84 and 85 of Civil Procedure Code. ( 9 ) INSOFAR as the concession made by the counsel appearing for the respondent before the Commission, the Apex Court in the case of union OF INDIA vs MOHANLAL has held: "whenever a wrong concession is made by a counsel, the same cannot bind the parties when statutory provisions clearly provide otherwise. " To my mind, the concession, if any, is really of no consequence because as stated, the wrong concession made by the counsel cannot bind the parties when statutory provisions clearly provide otherwise. " To my mind, the concession, if any, is really of no consequence because as stated, the wrong concession made by the counsel cannot bind the parties when statutory provisions clearly provide otherwise. ( 10 ) IN the case of SANJEEV COKE MANUFACTURING company vs BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED, it is observed by a Constitution Bench that the Courts are not to act on the basis of concession made by the counsel appearing for the parties, but with reference to the provisions applicable to the case on hand. The said view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of UPTRON india LIMITED vs SHAMMI BHAN and the CENTRAL council FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDA AND SIDDHA vs dr. K.. It is useful to extract the observation of the Apex Court: "if the learned counsel has made an admission or concession inadvertently or under a mistaken impression of law, it is not binding on his client and the same cannot enure to the benefit of any party. " ( 11 ) IT is to be noticed that such concession will have no acceptability or relevance while determining the rights and liabilities incurred or acquired in view of the axiomatic rules without exception that there could be any estoppel against the statute. ( 12 ) THE Apex Court in the case of PERIYAR AND pareekanni RUBBERS LIMITED vs STATE OF KERALA has observed thus: "any concession made by the Government Pleader in the Trial Court cannot bind the Government as it is obviously always unsafe to rely on the wrong or erroneous or wanton concession made by the counsel appearing for the State unless it is in writing on instructions from the responsible officer. Otherwise it would place undue and needless heavy burden on the public Exchequer. But, the same yardstick cannot be applied when the Advocate general has made a statement across the bar, since the advocate General makes a statement with all responsibility. " Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the conduct of the petitioner in not depositing the balance of sale consideration, the petitioner is not entitled for the writ of mandamus directing the respondent to receive the balance of sale consideration and execute the sale deed in respect of the petition schedule property. There is no merit in this petition, petition stands rejected. Rule discharged.