Karnataka HC Lets Resort Owner Continue Licensed Business For Now, Quashes Shutdown Order Passed Without Notice

The petitioner, proprietor of Hill Stone Hampi, challenged the Gram Panchayat’s order dated 24 February 2026 withdrawing the licence for his boarding, lodging, hotel and resort and directing him to stop operations.

He contended that the licence was withdrawn without a prior hearing.

The respondents relied on a notice dated 30 December 2025, said to have been served pursuant to directions from a Task Force chaired by the Tahsildar, and argued that the petitioner had failed to produce documents establishing compliant operations.

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

The Court relied on the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of a fair opportunity to be heard before administrative action adversely affecting a person is taken.

It linked those principles to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and applied 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; omission of a fair hearing may render an order void ab initio.

The respondents asserted that notice had been served, but the material produced showed signatures of tenants rather than the petitioner, whose name as property owner differed from the signatory shown.

The Court therefore found no adequate notice to the petitioner before the licence was withdrawn.

Because he had not been given an opportunity to produce records supporting his licence, the impugned order was contrary to natural justice and could not stand.

It permitted the petitioner to continue operating strictly within the terms of his licence, while allowing the PDO to 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; the PDO was directed to provide an opportunity to produce documents and be heard, then pass appropriate orders within four weeks of that appearance.

The parties’ other contentions were left open.