Koppal Restaurant Can Continue Under Existing Licence Pending Fresh Hearing After Karnataka HC Quashes Withdrawal Without Hearing Owners

The petitioners challenged the Panchayat Development Officer’s order dated 24 February 2026 withdrawing the licence for their boarding, lodging, hotel and resort activities and directing them to stop operating

The respondents contended that notice had been served on 30 December 2025 and that the petitioners had failed to produce documents substantiating their licensed activities.

On examining the notice materials, the Court found that the signatures appeared to be those of tenants, not the property owners, and concluded that the petitioners had not been given notice before the impugned action.

The petitioners had continued operating under an interim order of the Court.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of a fair hearing before an administrative authority takes action adversely affecting a person’s rights.

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

The Court also referred to the petitioners’ asserted right to pursue their occupation under Article 19(1)(g).

Although the respondents asserted that notice had been served, the Court found that the signatures on the notice record were those of tenants rather than the petitioners, who owned the property.

It therefore concluded that the petitioners had not received notice or an opportunity to produce documents concerning their licence before the order was made.

In those circumstances, the order violated natural justice and could not stand.

The Court did not accept the respondents’ maintainability objection based on the unchallenged Tahsildar’s direction; it quashed the impugned order and left the parties’ other contentions open.

The petitioners were permitted to continue their licensed activities, subject to the terms of the licence; the PDO could take appropriate action if activities outside the licence were found.

The petitioners were directed to appear before the PDO with relevant documents on 30 October 2026, and the PDO was directed to provide an opportunity to be heard and pass appropriate orders within four weeks of their first appearance.