IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.8528 OF 2019 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
SHRI ALTAF HUSSAIN AGED 56 YEARS SON OF ABDUL RAHIM RESIDING AT RESERVE CAMP JOG FALLS, SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA – 577 435. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,ROOM NO.222 IIND FLOOR,VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAGAR SUB DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OF JOG POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 421.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE / ORDER DATED 12.01.2019 ISSUED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE/R-3 VIDE ANNX-A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO. QUASH THE ORDER/CIRCULAR DATED 10.01.2019 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE / R-2, VIDE ANNX-B AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GOUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri P.P.Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Vijayakumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
2. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner interalia seeks to quash the notice/order dated 12.01.2019 issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police/Respondent No.3 as per Annexure – ‘A’.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the State Government had formulated a policy dated 31.03.2016 with regard to registration of Home Stays. Thereafter, the State Government framed the Rules, namely, Karnataka Tourism Trade (Facilitation and Regulation) Rules, 2016 on 25.01.2017. The petitioner was thereafter served with a notice on 12.01.2019 by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Jog Police Station, Shivamogga District calling upon him to stop his Home Stay and to appear before the Police Authorities on 12.01.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no requirement of registration of Home Stays and therefore, the petitioner is not required to obtain any registration in order to enable to run Home Stay.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner may submit a reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice within a period of two weeks. He also submitted that the registration of Home Stay is necessary.
6. Be that as it may. In the fact situation of the case, since the petitioner has only assailed the validity of the notice dated 12.01.2019, I deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to submit his response to the aforesaid show-
cause notice issued by Respondent No.3 within a period of three weeks from the date of certified copy of the order passed today. It is needless to state that incase, the petitioner files his objections to the aforesaid show-cause notice within a period of three weeks, the Assistant Superintendent of Police shall decide the objections filed by the petitioner by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to him, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such objections.
It is made clear that till the objections preferred by the petitioner is adjudicated, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned notice issued by Respondents No.2 dated 12.01.2019 as per Annexure – ‘A’ as well as the order dated 10.01.2019 issued by Respondent No.2 as per Annexure – ‘B’.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
DH JUDGE