SRI VINODKUMAR M R S/O A RAMAKRISHNA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18397
WP No. 102837 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058962026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO. 102837 OF 2026 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VINODKUMAR M.R. S/O A. RAMAKRISHNA,
PROPRIETOR, TROPICAL HAMPI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. BASAVANNA CIRCLE,
GANGAVATHI TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231.
2. SRI. SACHINKUMAR C. S/O MALLANGOUDA C.,
PROPRIETOR, TROPICAL HAMPI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. JAYANAGAR, GANGAVATHI TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231.
… PETITIONERS
(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.
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:18397
WP No. 102837 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058962026
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYAT,
KOPPAL-583234.
5. GRAM PANCHAYAT BANDIHARLAPUR,
R/BY THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
BANDIHARLAPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BANDIHARLAPUR, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583234.
6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
GESCOM, MUNIRABAD,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583234.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RATNAMALA G.H., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. VIJAYKUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT, DIRECTION, ORDER OR ORDERS IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2026
TH
PASSED BY 5 RESPONDENT (GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BANDIHARLAPURA) BEARING NO.
KRA.SAN.GRA.PAN.BAN.HA/HO/RA/PA.RA/2025-26/94/24-2-26
TH
AS PER ANNEXURE-A; MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 6
RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND
UN-SEIZE THE ROOMS OF THE ‘TROPICAL HAMPI’ RESTAURANT
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18397
WP No. 102837 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058962026
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, Smt.Soubhagya S.Vakkund, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Ratnamala.G.H,
learned HCGP 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,
this petition is squarely covered by the Judgment passed
by this Court in W.P.No.102831/2026. In that view of the
matter, the same relief may be accorded in this petition
also.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18397
WP No. 102837 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058962026
4. Submission is placed on record. The order
passed by this Court in W.P.No.102831/2026 reads as
under:
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 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
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18397
WP No. 102837 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058962026
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 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
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18397
WP No. 102837 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058962026
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 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 Supreme Court in
the case of MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF
1
INDIA , ruled that Administrative and quasi judicial
actions must be “right, just and fair” and never
arbitrary or oppressive. Omitting of fair hearing
1
1978 AIR 597
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18397
WP No. 102837 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058962026
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
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.
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.”
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18397
WP No. 102837 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058962026
5. Since the lis involved in this petition is squarely
covered by the order passed in Writ Petition supra, the
same relief is granted in this Writ Petition also.
Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed .
(ii) The order passed by the PDO, impugned
in the Writ Petition dated 24.02.2026 is
quashed.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18397
WP No. 102837 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020058962026
take appropriate action to seize the
concerned, shop/ hotel/ resort, in public
interest.
(v) Since the petitioner is before this Court,
he shall appear before the concerned
PDO along with all documents on
30.11.2026, without awaiting for any
notice from the PDO and produce all the
documents in support of his case in
respect of license issued.
(vi) 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.
(vii) All the contentions of the parties are left
open.
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
RKM/TKN
CT:BCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 51