Resort Owner May Continue Under Licence Pending Hearing After Karnataka HC Quashes Licence Withdrawal For Lack Of Notice

The petitioner, proprietor of a guest house and resort, challenged the Panchayat Development Officer’s order dated 24 February 2026 withdrawing his licence and directing him to stop operations.

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

The respondents argued that a notice had been issued on 30 December 2025, pursuant to directions of the Tahsildar, and that the petitioner had failed to establish that he was operating in accordance with his licence.

On examining the notice, the Court found that the signatures appearing on it were those of tenants and not the petitioner.

Administrative and quasi-judicial decisions must comply with the principles of natural justice, including a fair opportunity to be heard; an order made without that opportunity may be unsustainable.

The Court 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.

It also connected natural justice with the guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court found that the notice relied upon by the respondents did not establish that the petitioner had been notified, because the signatures on it belonged to tenants rather than the property owner.

The petitioner had therefore not been given a meaningful opportunity to produce documents supporting his licence before it was withdrawn.

Applying the requirement of fair administrative procedure, the Court held the impugned order unsustainable, without deciding the underlying merits of the petitioner’s entitlement to operate.

The petitioner was permitted to continue operating strictly within the terms of his licence; the PDO could take appropriate action if unauthorised activities were found.

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

All contentions were left open.