SHRI. PRAKASH S/O VINAYAK DURGE vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17043
WP No. 104572 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020092152026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO.104572 OF 2026 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. PRAKASH S/O. VINAYAK DURGE,
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND JINI HUTS
AND RESTAURANT VILLAGE BANDIHARLAPUR,
R/O. BANDIHARLAPUR,
TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583234.
2. SHWETA DURGE,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND
JINI HUTS AND RESTAURANT,
VILLAGE BANDIHARLAPUR,
R/O. BANDIHARLAPUR,
TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583234.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
KOPPAL TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
Digitally signed by
THEJAS KUMAR
N
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17043
WP No. 104572 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020092152026
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYAT KOPPAL-583234.
5. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
BANDIHARLAPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BANDIHARLAPUR TALUK AND
DISTRICT. KOPPAL-583234.
6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
GESCOM, MUNIRABAD,
KOPPAL TQ AND DIST- 583234.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUNITHA J.SEQUEIRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. VIJAYKUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER
TH
DATED: 24/02/2026 PASSED BY 5 RESPONDENT (GRAM
PANCHAYAT BANDIHARLAPUR) BEARING
NO. PÀæ.¸ÀA.UÁæ.¥ÀA:§A.ºÀ./ºÉÆ/gÉ/¥À.gÀ./2025-26 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. B)
TH
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 6
TH
RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE THE ELECTRICITY AND 5
RESPONDENT TO UN-SEIZE THE ROOMS OF THE “JINI HUTS
AND RESTAURANT” RESTAURANT BELONGING TO THE
PETITIONER. C) ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17043
WP No. 104572 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020092152026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed calling in question the order
passed by the Panchayat Development Officer,
withdrawing the license issued for running the boarding
and lodging/ hotel and resorts and directing the petitioners
to stop all the activities with immediate effect.
2. Heard, Sri.Sharanabasava.B, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Sunitha J.Sequeira,
learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for
respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.Vijaykumar Balagerimath,
learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that, the PDO has passed an order withdrawing the license
which was issued in terms of law, without affording any
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17043
WP No. 104572 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020092152026
opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case, prior
to passing the impugned order. He further submits that in
view of the order passed, the petitioners are not in a
position to run continue their avocation, which they are
entitled to under Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India, which is right to life and liberty. The
order passed without adhering to the principles of natural
justice is not sustainable in law and liable to be set-aside.
With this, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to
allow the Writ Petition.
4. In contrast, Sri.Vijaykumar Balagerimath, with
all vehemence, referring to the documents submitted
along with memo dated 06.10.2026 contended that the
notice was issued on 30.12.2025 in terms of order passed
by the Tahsildar on 10.09.2025, who has been appointed
as Chairman, Task Force prior to issuing the order
impugned in the Writ Petition. The notice is served on all
the petitioners as per the chart produced at page No.8 of
the document, produced along with the memo, wherein
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17043
WP No. 104572 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020092152026
the signature of the petitioners is forthcoming. In
compliance of the notice, the petitioners have not
produced any document to show that he is running the
hotel and resort in terms of the license issued. However
they are indulged in illegal activities as has been found by
the PDO and the order came to be issued in terms of the
direction issued by the District Commissioner, while
appointing the said Task Force, headed by the concerned
jurisdictional Tahsildar. In that view of the matter, the
Writ Petition without calling in question the order passed
by the Tahsildar directing the PDO to initiate appropriate
action after holding joint inspection, is not maintainable.
5. Having considered the rival submissions, this
Court has perused the entire Writ Petition paper along with
the memo & documents produced by the PDO.
6. What transpires from the documents is, some
notice issued on 30.12.2025, depicts the signature of
some tenants in the petitioners premises. The name of the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17043
WP No. 104572 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020092152026
owner of the property is different from the signature found
in the signature column. In that view of the matter, on
prima facie
material, this Court is of the opinion that there
was no notice issued prior to taking action in terms of
directions issued by the Tahsildar, Chairman of Task Force
to the PDO. In view thereof, the impugned order passed is
in violation of principles of natural justice, without
providing any opportunity to the petitioners to submit
records in support of their claim made in this Writ Petition,
in respect of license issued at the earlier point of time.
7. The principles of natural justice are not an
empty formality, rather they form essential bedrock of
fairness, equity, and the Rule of law in administrative and
judicial decision making. The principles of natural justice is
linked directly to the fundamental right like Article 14 and
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of MANEKA GANDHI VS.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17043
WP No. 104572 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020092152026
1
UNION OF INDIA , ruled that Administrative and quasi
judicial actions must be “right, just and fair” and never
arbitrary or oppressive. Omitting of fair hearing typically
renders an order void ab initio . In that view of the matter,
the Writ Petition is allowed . The order passed by the PDO
impugned in the Writ Petition dated 24.02.2026 is
quashed.
8. This Court at the first instance, passed an order
staying the operation and execution of the order impugned
in the Writ Petition and the petitioners are running his
hotel/ resort, in view of the said interim order.
9. The petitioners are permitted to continue his
avocation, however strictly subject to the license issued by
the PDO. During the interregnum, if it is found that there
are activities other than the one permitted under the
license, the PDO to take appropriate action to seize the
concerned, shop/ hotel/ resort, in public interest.
1
1978 AIR 597
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17043
WP No. 104572 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020092152026
10. Since the petitioners are before this Court, they
shall appear before the concerned PDO along with all
30.10.2026,
documents on without awaiting for any
notice from the PDO and produce all the documents in
support of their case in respect of license issued.
11. The respondent PDO shall provide the
petitioners appropriate opportunity to produce the
documents and hear them and pass appropriate orders,
within four weeks from the date of first appearance.
12. All the contentions of the parties are left open.
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN
CT: UMD
List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1