The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions challenging enforcement actions against unauthorized commercial activities in the Hampi World Heritage area, in light of binding Supreme Court directions explicitly prohibiting such litigation.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. The petitioners have challenged the notices/endorsement dated 21.06.2017 issued by 3rd respondent-The Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows:

3. The respondent No.3 issued NOC and license to run Hotels and Restaurants to the petitioners and the said license were renewed from time to time. Public Interest Litigation came to be filed in Writ Petition No.29843/2009. The said PIL came to be disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2016 wherein the 3rd respondent submitted that action will be taken to remove the illegal and unauthorized activities as expeditiously as possible. The 3rd respondent issued the intimation calling upon the petitioners to vacate the hotels, restaurants and huts. The petitioners replied to the intimations. The 3rd respondent issued endorsements impugned herein rejecting the reply/explanations submitted by the petitioners, unilaterally. Hence, these writ petitions.

4. Heard Sri. K.L. Patil, senior member of the bar for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. K.L. Patil submit that respondent No.3 without application of mind and without considering the reply of the petitioners has issued the endorsement. They submit that the petitioners are carrying on the business after obtaining licence from the concerned authorities, respondent No.3 cannot call upon the petitioners to remove the unauthorized restaurants, hotels etc, unilaterally. They submit that the action of respondent No.3 is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on these grounds, they pray to allow the writ petitions.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sakkubai and others v. State of Karnataka and others ¹(2020) 11 SCC 124. He submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has clarified that neither the High Court nor any other Court shall entertain any matter pertaining to the subject on hand for granting extension of time or any other relief in favour of the petitioners. He submit that in view of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petitions.

7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

8. Admittedly, similarly placed petitioners earlier filed the writ petition before this Court which came to be dismissed. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sakkubai (supra) after considering the entire material held as follows:

“21. In this regard, as mentioned supra, the appellants have argued that the HWHAMA, which is a body set up under the Hampi Act, 2002, could not have issued such orders for demolition as the illegality of the constructions (if any) was rooted in the 1961 Act. At its very core, we find that this issue relates to the interplay between the 1961 Act and the Hampi Act, 2002. Thus, before delving into the relevant legal provisions, we deem it fit to appreciate the objects underlying these statutes and the contexts in which they were enacted.

21.1. As mentioned supra, the 1961 Act was introduced with the object of ensuring the preservation of ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains in Karnataka. In pursuance of the same, the 1988 Notif