Karnataka HC Quashes Resort Licence Withdrawal After Finding Notice Was Not Served On Operator; He May Continue Under Licence

The petitioner, proprietor of Rocky Meadow Hampi Resort, challenged the Panchayat Development Officer’s order dated 24 February 2026 withdrawing the licence to operate the lodging and resort and directing cessation of activities.

He contended 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 the Tahsildar, and maintained that the petitioner had not produced documents establishing that the resort was operating in accordance with its licence.

The Court examined the notice and accompanying documents, including the signatures recorded on the notice.

Administrative and quasi-judicial decisions must comply with the principles of natural justice, including a fair opportunity to be heard before adverse action is taken. The Court stated that these principles are integral to fairness and the Rule of Law and are directly connected with 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.

The petitioner also invoked Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 in support of his challenge.

The Court found that the notice relied on by the respondents bore signatures apparently belonging to tenants at the premises, while the property owner’s name differed from the name associated with the signature. On that material, the Court concluded that the petitioner had not been given notice before the adverse action was taken and had therefore been denied an opportunity to produce records supporting his claim that he held a valid licence.

Applying the requirement of fair hearing, the Court held that the impugned withdrawal order could not stand.

It nevertheless left the licensing question open for the PDO to reconsider after hearing the petitioner and reviewing his documents.

The petitioner was permitted to continue operating only in accordance with the licence, with the PDO authorised to take appropriate action, including seizure, 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, and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks of the petitioner’s first appearance.

All other contentions were left open.