M. JAYARAM SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Learned High Court Govt. Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent. Notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with in the light of the order to follow.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been granted an excise license and that he is running a Bar and Restaurant at Amasebail Village of Kundapur Taluk. That he has been carrying on the business for the last 22 years and that though excise license was renewed for the year 2017-18, the 3rd respondent Panchayat unilaterally concluded to keep in abeyance the petitioner's application for issuance of trade license on the premise that the land upon which the building is constructed actually belongs to the Dakshina Kannada, Zilla Parishath. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such entity. He would submit that aggrieved he preferred an appeal to the second respondent and the same came to be registered as appeal No.07/2017-18 and vide Annexure- E dated 02.06.2018. The appellate authority-second respondent was pleased to grant an interim order and the same was subsisting till the passing of the impugned order dated 13.06.2019 whereby, the appellate authority without hearing the parties proceeded to suo moto vacate the interim order granted by it and hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order is violative of the principles of natural justice as the same has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and behind his back.