Hampi Resort Owner Can Continue Under Licence For Now After Karnataka HC Quashes Withdrawal For Lack Of Notice To Him

The petitioner, proprietor of Tungabhadra Resort Hampi, challenged a 24 February 2026 order of the Shivapur Gram Panchayat’s Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) withdrawing the licence to operate the lodging, hotel and resort and directing cessation of activities.

He argued that the order was made without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

The respondents relied on a notice dated 30 December 2025, said to have been issued pursuant to directions from a Task Force chaired by the Tahsildar.

The Court found that the signatures on the notice appeared to be those of tenants, not the property owner.

The petitioner was operating the resort under an interim order staying the impugned order.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, including the requirement of a fair opportunity to be heard before an administrative decision adversely affects a person’s rights or interests.

It observed that these principles are connected with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, for the rule that administrative and quasi-judicial action must be “right, just and fair,” and not arbitrary or oppressive.

The respondents asserted that notice had been served, but the Court’s review of the notice found that the signatures appeared to belong to tenants rather than the petitioner.

It therefore concluded, on the material before it, that the petitioner had not been given notice before action was taken under the Task Force directions.

Because the petitioner had not had an opportunity to produce documents supporting his licence, the order withdrawing it violated natural justice and could not stand.

The Court nevertheless made the petitioner’s continued operation conditional on compliance with the licence and directed a fresh opportunity for him to present his documents to the PDO.

The petitioner was permitted to continue operating strictly in accordance with his licence; the PDO could take appropriate action if activities outside the licence were found.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the PDO with supporting documents on 30 October 2026, and the PDO was directed to provide an opportunity to produce documents and be heard, then pass appropriate orders within four weeks of the petitioner’s first appearance.

All contentions were left open.