Karnataka HC Lets Wellness Resort Continue Operating Under Existing Licence For Now, Quashing Closure Order Passed Without Hearing Proprietor

The petitioner, proprietor of Yogalaya Wellness Center, challenged the Panchayat Development Officer’s order dated 24 February 2026 withdrawing the licence to operate a boarding, lodging, hotel and resort business and directing that the activities cease.

The petitioner contended that the order was made without an opportunity to be heard.

The respondents maintained that notice had been served and that the action followed directions issued by the Tahsildar, as Chairman of a Task Force.

On examining the notice materials, the Court found that the signatures appeared to be those of tenants and not the property owner.

The Court relied on the principles of natural justice, including the requirement of a fair hearing before an administrative decision adversely affecting a person is made.

It stated that these principles are connected to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and referred to 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 Court further observed that omission of a fair hearing may render an order void ab initio.

The Court considered the respondents’ claim that notice had been served but found that the relevant notice bore signatures of tenants, while the property owner’s name differed from the name associated with the signatures.

It therefore concluded, on the material before it, that the petitioner had not been given notice before the action was taken and had no opportunity to submit documents supporting the licence.

Applying the natural-justice requirement of a fair hearing, the Court held that the impugned order could not be sustained.

It permitted the petitioner to continue the business, strictly subject to the licence, and directed the petitioner to appear before the PDO with relevant documents on 30 October 2026.

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; the parties’ other contentions were left open.