Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2260/2026 of SAJID Vs DISTRICT TOURISM DEVELOPMENT OFFICER on 18 August 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2260/2026 Sajid --Petitioner Versus District Tourism Development Officer --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr.
UKHC010130912026
2026:UHC:7437
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS/2260/2026
Sajid
--Petitioner
Versus
District Tourism Development Officer
--Respondent
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr.
Bhupesh
Kandpal,
learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel
for the respondent.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Petitioner was granted licence to run Homestay at Ramnagar, District Nainital. His licence was cancelled by District Tourism Development Officer, Nainital vide order dated 13.05.2026. The ground taken for cancelling licence is that a criminal case was registered against the person to whom the property was leased out by petitioner.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity of hearing while cancelling his licence.
3. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel appearing for District Tourism Development Officer was given time to get instructions in the matter. On instructions, he concedes that opportunity of hearing was not given to petitioner. He, however, submits that Rules do not contemplate any opportunity while cancelling the licence.
4. Law is well settled that any order which entails civil consequences to a
UKHC010130912026
2026:UHC:7437 person has to be passed after affording opportunity of hearing. Since the order impugned entails civil consequences, therefore, principles of natural justice were required to be followed before passing any order adverse to the interest of petitioner.
5. On this short point alone, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.05.2026 is set aside. However, District Tourism Development Officer shall be at liberty to pass fresh order against the petitioner, after issuing show cause notice, within four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.08.2026 Mahinder