Hampi Resort Owner Can Continue Under Licence Pending Fresh Hearing, Karnataka HC Quashes Closure Order For Lack Of Notice

The petitioner, proprietor of “Osho’s Organic Resort Hampi,” challenged the Panchayat Development Officer’s order dated 24 February 2026 withdrawing the licence for the boarding, lodging, hotel and resort and directing cessation of activities.

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

The respondents argued that notice had been issued on 30 December 2025 pursuant to directions of the Tahsildar, acting as Task Force Chairman, and that the petitioner had not produced documents establishing compliance with the licence.

The Court found that the notice material bore signatures of tenants, not the property owner, and concluded that the petitioner had not been given notice before the impugned action.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing before an administrative decision adversely affecting a person is made. It held that these principles are integral to fairness and the rule of law and are linked to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Relying on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, the Court reiterated that administrative and quasi-judicial action must be “right, just and fair,” and not arbitrary or oppressive.

Article 19(1)(g) was invoked by the petitioner in support of his right to carry on his occupation.

The respondents relied on a notice said to have been served before the PDO acted. On examining the notice material, however, the Court found that the signatures were those of tenants and did not establish service on the petitioner.

It therefore concluded that the petitioner had not received a proper opportunity to produce documents supporting his claim under the existing licence. In the absence of that opportunity, the order withdrawing the licence did not satisfy the requirements of natural justice and could not stand.

It permitted the petitioner to continue operating strictly in accordance with the licence, while authorising the PDO to take appropriate action if activities outside the licence were found.

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

All parties’ contentions were left open.