SRI MARUTI G.S. S/O. SRIRAMAPPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17036
WP No. 102841 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058902026
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.102841 OF 2026 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MARUTI G.S. S/O. SRIRAMAPPA,
PROPRIETOR,
HAMPI NATURES COTTAGE GUEST HOUSE,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. T.B. DAM ROAD, NEW AMARAVATI,
HOSAPET, VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT-583201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA S. VAKKUND, 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.
Digitally signed by
THEJAS KUMAR
N
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL TQ AND DIST., KOPPAL-583231.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
KOPPAL TQ AND DIST., KOPPAL-583231.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK: PANCHAYAT, KOPPAL-583234.
5. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
BANDIHARLAPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BANDIHARLAPUR,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583234.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17036
WP No. 102841 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058902026
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 WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT, DIRECTION,
ORDER OR ORDERS IN THE NATURE OF I) CERTIORARI TO SET
TH
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2026 PASSED BY 5 RESPONDENT
(GRAM PANCHAYAT, BANDIHARLAPURA) BEARING
NO.KRA.SAM.GRA.PAM.BAM.HA/HO/RA/PA.RA/2025-26/24-2-26 AS
TH
PER ANNEXURE-A. II) MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 6
RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND UN-
SEIZE THE ROOMS OF THE RESORT. III) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER
OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING AWARD OF
QUASHING.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17036
WP No. 102841 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058902026
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, Smt.Soubhagya S.Vakkund, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, 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 petitioner submits that,
the PDO has passed an order withdrawing the license
which was issued in terms of law, without affording any
opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case, prior to
passing the impugned order. She further submits that in
view of the order passed, the petitioner is not in a position
to run continue his avocation, which he is entitled to under
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17036
WP No. 102841 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058902026
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 petitioner 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
the signature of the petitioner is forthcoming. In
compliance of the notice, the petitioner has not produced
any document to show that he is running the hotel and
resort in terms of the license issued. However he is
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17036
WP No. 102841 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058902026
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 petitioner’s premises. The name of
the 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
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17036
WP No. 102841 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058902026
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 petitioner to
submit records in support of his 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
MANEKA GANDHI VS.
Supreme Court in the case of
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,
1
1978 AIR 597
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17036
WP No. 102841 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058902026
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 petitioner is running his hotel/
resort, in view of the said interim order.
9. The petitioner is 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.
10. Since the petitioner is before this Court, he
shall appear before the concerned PDO along with all
documents on 30.10.2026, without awaiting for any
notice from the PDO and produce all the documents in
support of his case in respect of license issued.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17036
WP No. 102841 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058902026
11. The respondent PDO shall provide the petitioner
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:PA
LIST NO.: 4 SL NO.: 1