ORDER Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. Petitioners are questioning the act of the respondent BDA and also the provisions of Rule 6(2) and 6(3) of the BDA (Disposal of Corner Sites & Commercial Sites), Rules, 1984 as constitutionally invalid and, to strike down the said rules and to issue a mandamus and any other appropriate writ directing the respondent BDA to issue notice under Rule 6(3) confirming the auction sale in favour of the petitioners in respect of site Nos. 823, 410, 438, 796 and 824 comprised in Sector 1 of Hosur Sarjapur Road Layout sold at public auction held by the BDA on 30.7.1993 and to accept the balance of 75% of the site value in respect of each of the said sites in question and deliver vacant possession of the said sites to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, in the petitions filed earlier, they had sought for an interim direction to the BDA not to dispose of the auction sites in any manner. After notice was served on the respondent, in the earlier petitions, after the appearance of the respondent on 13.10.1993 this Court granted an interim order to maintain status quo until further orders. According to the petitioners, they being the highest bidders in respect of the above stated sites as to the auction held on 30.7.1993, the price of was fixed at Rs.1,510/- in respect of the first two sites and Rs.1,710/-, Rs.1,760/- and Rs.1,510/- per sq. mtr was fixed in respect of the other three sites and the same was accepted by the BDA and 25% of the bid was accepted by it amounting to Rs.92,400/- Rs.1,29,900/- Rs.1,05,000/-, Rs.1,03,200/- and Rs.94,700/- respectively. However, the earlier petitions were dismissed on 22.11.1996. Later, a Civil Petition was filed for recalling but, in the CP filed, there was an interim order passed on 5.7.2002 and a stay order was issued against the BDA for a period of one month. During pendency of the CP, respondent BDA issued five endorsements each dated 6.2.2003 to the petitioners informing that petitioners had been allotted an alternative site each measuring about 40 x 60 ft. bearing Nos. 1245 of BTM 4th Stage 2nd block; No. 303, HSR Sector 4; No.304A, HSR Sector 4; No.199A, HSR Sector 4 and No. 199B, Sector 4 Extensions. Acting upon those endorsements, by order dated 14.2.2003, CP 1000/2002 was disposed of. bearing Nos. 1245 of BTM 4th Stage 2nd block; No. 303, HSR Sector 4; No.304A, HSR Sector 4; No.199A, HSR Sector 4 and No. 199B, Sector 4 Extensions. Acting upon those endorsements, by order dated 14.2.2003, CP 1000/2002 was disposed of. In spite of it, respondent did not take necessary steps in regard to newly allotted sites despite petitioners approaching the BDA personally, and sending several requisitions requesting to take further steps. Since there was no response from the BDA, a Contempt Case was filed in CCC 257-261/2004. Subsequently, some other letters were received i.e., allotment letters dated 8th and 6th April 2004 directing petitioners to pay Rs.31,21,550/- in respect of one site and Rs.32,91,810/- in respect of the other four sites. When the auction of the sites by the BDA took place, then the rate was fixed at Rs.13,998/ per sq. mtr. in respect of one site and at Rs.14,772/- in respect of the other four sites mentioned above. Stating that in respect of each of the allotted sites, the rate fixed is entirely arbitrary, whimsical and without any rationale, petitioners preferred to file these petitions contending that though the BDA has accepted the highest bid of the petitioners in the auction and also in this regard 1/4th of the bid amount was accepted, subsequently, on the writ petition filed and thereafter, on dismissal of the same, in the Civil Petition filed pursuant to the undertaking given by the BDA, alternative sites were allotted but, while fixing the prices, arbitrarily exorbitant rates had been quoted without quoting the same bid rate for the alternative sites allotted and without giving opportunity to the petitioners. It is also stated, the endorsement issued by the BDA at Annexures-J to N fixing astronomical rate per sq. mtr in respect of each of the allotted sites is contrary to settled principles. Heard the Counsel representing the parties. It is the argument of the petitioners’ Counsel that for the allotment of alternative site in lieu of cancellation of the bid in which the petitioners have participated and tendered 25% of the amount, the rate fixed by the BDA is unreasonable and arbitrary and accordingly have sought to fix the prices as was prevailing at the time of participating in the bid during July 1993. It is also contended in respect of the site offered to one of the bidders applying the Allotment Rules, the BDA tried to cancel the allotment on the ground that one family cannot have more than one site which is arbitrary. Accordingly, he has sought for allowing the petition. In the earlier round of litigation as against the cancellation of the bid held in WPs 33146-33150 /1993, this Court having noted the legal position regarding Rules 6(2) & 6(3) of the Rules having regard to the tenor of the Rules regarding confirmation of sale in bid within 45 or 60 days, has held the sale could be confirmed. If the decision is not taken to confirm, it is open to the auction purchaser to withdraw the amount deposited and to demand interest. Further, regarding quashing of the Rules is concerned, this Court has held that they are neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Hence, the same is not open to challenge in this petition. In the earlier round of litigation it is also held by this Court that the decision not to accept the bid is not open to challenge. As such question of directing the authorities to confirm the sale does not arise. What transpires after the civil petition was filed is, a memo was filed by the BDA stating that in lieu of the auction site petitioners would be given intermediate sites in the same layout but, however, in different sectors. Thereafter, petitioners are shown to have filed contempt proceedings. Pursuant to the same, the BDA also issued a letter fixing the amount to be paid by the petitioners. According to the petitioners’ Counsel the rate fixed for the alternative site allotted is on the higher side. The price ought to have been fixed reasonably taking into consideration the price that was prevailing when they participated in the auction proceedings. Further, according to the petitioners’ Counsel the petitioners who have participated in the auction proceedings being family members, the BDA has taken a view that only one person is entitled for allotment without allowing both the petitioners to have individual sites which is illegal. In so far as the cancellation of the auction sale, in the earlier round of litigation this Court has specificality held that it is primarily a matter of contract. BDA can regulate the manner in which it will auction its sites. In so far as the cancellation of the auction sale, in the earlier round of litigation this Court has specificality held that it is primarily a matter of contract. BDA can regulate the manner in which it will auction its sites. An auction purchaser has no right to require the BDA to sell its sites by auction in a particular manner. Even it has been specifically held that Sections 10, 11 & 13 of the BDA Act provides for delegation of power to decide whether to accept the bid or confirm the same by the authority functioning through its statutorily constituted committee. The same cannot be termed as unreasonable, whimsical or arbitrary. The Civil Petitions filed were dismissed with an observation that the cancellation of auction sites is not open to challenge. It has also observed that BDA has in fact, tendered refund of 25% amount paid by the petitioners. When such being the case, for reasons known to BDA when the Civil Petition was filed there was an undertaking given by the BDA that alternative sites would be allotted for having cancelled the auction sale although it was not binding on the respondent BDA. The grievance of the petitioners is, the rate quoted subsequently by the BDA is unreasonable and on the higher side. When the situation stood thus, petitioners at the most could come forward to pay the price fixed as it was prevailing at the time of allotment of alternative sites. The reason may be that when the BD A has come forward to consider the request of the petitioners for allotment of alternative site as a matter of gratis, petitioners cannot take the same as obligation on the BDA to fix the price then prevailing at the time of auction purchase. As there was no obligation on the BDA to confirm the auction sale or else to allot alternative sites as it was not bound by the Allotment Rules. Further, even as per the Rules, if the BDA only intends to allot one site to one family as per the Rules although both the spouses have participated for the auction sale independently, the same cannot be considered as binding on the BDA. Rather, the Rules prescribe one site for a family. Further, even as per the Rules, if the BDA only intends to allot one site to one family as per the Rules although both the spouses have participated for the auction sale independently, the same cannot be considered as binding on the BDA. Rather, the Rules prescribe one site for a family. In the event if the petitioners cannot afford to pay the rates fixed by the BDA, they can seek for return of the initial deposit with 8% interest from the date of deposit till refund. Accordingly, petitions are disposed of.