Disposed¶32

M/S Fine Serve Hospitality Services (India) v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2025WP/23609/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC termination notice treated as show cause notice; writ petition disposed with directions; Atithya Midway Plaza licence; arrear of licence fee; extension of licence period by fresh offer; petitioner to approach Corporation within one week; consideration within one month; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; WP No. 23609 of 2023; Karnataka High Court; E.S. Indiresh J.; no cases cited; no quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: Termination Notice treated as a Showcause Notice; petitioner permitted to reply and to seek extension of the licence period by a fresh offer/application to be made within one week, which the respondent-Corporation shall consider in accordance with law within one month thereafter. ¶32

M/S Fine Serve Hospitality Services (India) Vs… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the Termination Notice dated 04.02.2022 (Annexure-E) bearing Reference No. KRS-CO/SL NO. C-3/23094/1882/2021-22 issued by the respondent-Corporation should be quashed.

¶21

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the Termination Notice dated 04.02.2022, it shall be considered as a Showcause Notice to the petitioner, and the petitioner is permitted to make a reply to the same.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

It is open for the petitioner to seek an extension of time by way of a fresh offer to the respondent-Corporation in view of continuing its business in the premises.

¶31

Key takeaways

The petitioner is directed to approach the respondent-Corporation within one week from the receipt of the order seeking such other reliefs, including the extension of the license period.ratio¶32
If such fresh application is made by the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation shall consider the same in accordance with law within an outer limit of one month thereafter.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: M/s Fine Serve Hospitality Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. challenged a Termination Notice dated 04.02.2022 (Annexure-E) issued by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation terminating its arrangement for running 'Atithya Midway Plaza', in which an arrear of licence fee was indicated. The High Court, without going into merits, held that the Termination Notice should be considered as a Showcause Notice and permitted the petitioner to reply thereto; it further held the petitioner free to seek an extension of time by a fresh offer for continuing its business. The petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the respondent-Corporation within one week seeking reliefs including extension of the licence period, and directing the Corporation to consider any such fresh application in accordance with law within an outer limit of one month thereafter. (E.S. Indiresh, J.; decided 08-12-2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:51804 WP No. 23609 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 23609 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S FINE SERVE HOSPITALITY SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.528, 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND PHASE, 5^TH STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BEML LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560098 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. SHASHIDHARA P UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1958

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. B.R. VISWANATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HAVING ITS CENTRAL OFFICE AT SHANTHINGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTORW

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. P.D. SURANA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

¶18

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:51804 WP No. 23609 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ANNEXURE-E I.E. TERMINATION NOTICE DATED 04/02/2022 BEARING REFERENCE NO.KRS-CO/SL NO. C-3/23094/1882/2021-22 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶26

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the Termination Notice dated 04.02.2022 (Annexure-E), passed by the respondent-Corporation.

¶27

Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the impugned Notice at Annexure-E, it would indicate that the petitioner herein has entered into an agreement with the respondent-Corporation for running 'Atithya Midway Plaza'. It is also forthcoming from the impugned Notice that there is an arrear of license fee to be made by the petitioner herein. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the Termination Notice, it should be

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:51804 WP No. 23609 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

considered as a Showcause Notice to the petitioner herein and

¶31

the petitioner is permitted to make a reply to the same. Further, it is open for the petitioner to seek an extension of time by way of a fresh offer to the respondent-Corporation in view of continuing its business in the premises.

¶32

In that view of the matter, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the respondentCorporation within one week from the receipt of this order seeking such other reliefs, including the extension of the license period. If such fresh application is made by the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation shall consider the same in accordance with law within an outer limit of one month thereafter.

¶33

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed

¶34

of.

¶35

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶36

HDK

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

M/S Fine Serve Hospitality Services (India) v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Fine Serve Hospitality Services (India) v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anitha M. Varma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Srilakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Munihanumamma @ Rathnamma Vs Sri.Buddadas

Mr Chuna Rafi Ahmed Vs the Karnataka State Board

Balaji Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chairman and General Manager

Sri. Nagesh Prabhu Vs the Assistant Commissioner