MR. VEERAPPA HOLABASAPPA ARAKERI, AGE: 46 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF SHILPA INFOTECH, R/O: STATION ROAD, GUDIGERI, KUNDAHOLA TALUK, DISTRICT: DHARWAD Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, BIO TECHNOLOGY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VI FLOOR, 5TH STAGE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEDHI, BENGALURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Veerappa Holabasappa Arakeri, proprietor of M/s. Shilpa Infotech, Station Road, Gudigeri, Kundahola Taluk, Dharwad District, has filed the present appeal before us, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 23rd Sept. 2015 disposing of his Writ Petition No. 84864 of 2013 (GM-RES) with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy by way of filing a civil suit against the respondent-State and Department of Information Technology.

(2.) The petitioner approached the Court by way of aforesaid Writ Petition, aggrieved by the order passed by the Under Secretary, Department of Information Technology on 31st July 2013 canceling the licence given to the petitioner for running a Rural Business Process Outsourcing Centre, for imparting training to the persons in rural areas. According to the petitioner, he had commenced his business in the year 2011, but without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Respondent-State cancelled the said licence, giving the reason that the business was not being run under the licence given to the petitioner in terms of the relevant Rules and Regulations and terms and conditions of giving such licence. The petitioner was also entitled to certain monetary benefits like subsidy for running such a rural BPO, which was also not given to the petitioner. The petitioner assailed this order principally on the ground that principles of natural justice were not complied with by the respondent No. 1-authority while canceling his licence for running the said rural BPO.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, brought to our notice some reports given by respondent No.2, namely Karnataka Bio-Technology and Information Technology Services, Bengaluru, headed by a Government authority, according to which, during the inspection carried out in the years 2011 and 2012, the employees were found to be working in the said rural BPO run by the petitioner.