Taking note of the increasing number of disputes and petitions arising out of actions taken against homestays based on complaints received from tourists, neighboring residents, and local authorities, the Karnataka High Court has made some suggestions and also asked the Tourism Department to examine the feasibility of formulating a more comprehensive and integrated regulatory framework governing homestays in the State.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing of an impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of the District Tourism Development Committee.

The Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated, “In view of the increasing importance of the homestay sector and the recurring disputes brought before this Court, it would be appropriate for the Principal Secretary, Department of Tourism, Government of Karnataka, in consultation with the Departments concerned, to examine the feasibility of formulating a comprehensive policy and regulatory framework governing the establishment, operation and supervision of homestays in the State.”

Advocate Angad Kamath represented the Petitioner, while High Court Govt Pleader Shamanth Naik represented the Respondent.

Reasoning

The issue involved in the petition pertained to the operation of a homestay. Considering the Petitioner’s contention that the establishment in question fell within the ambit of a homestay as contemplated under clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, the Bench stated that once the field is occupied by a special statute regulating tourism-related establishments, any action affecting the Registration, recognition, functioning, or operation of such an establishment must necessarily conform to the procedure prescribed therein.

The Bench further noted that the record did not disclose the issuance of any show-cause notice, the grant of a reasonable opportunity to submit objections, or the conduct of any enquiry preceding the impugned action. “In the absence of compliance with the statutory procedure, the decision-making process stands vitiated”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that the impugned order suffered from a dual infirmity, as it had been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, and it was issued without adherence to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Tourism Trade (Facilitation and Regulation) Act, 2015, particularly Section 13 thereof. Thus, quashing the impugned order, the Bench reserved liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after complying with the statutory requirements and the principles of natural justice.

The Bench enumerated the following suggestions and guidelines:

  • Adequate fire prevention measures, emergency exits, firefighting equipment, evacuation protocols and periodic inspections are essential to safeguard the lives of guests and occupants.
  • Kitchens must conform to hygiene requirements, storage norms and quality standards prescribed under the relevant food safety laws.
  • Necessary to ensure compliance with zoning regulations, building by-laws, occupancy norms, sanitation requirements, waste management obligations and environmental regulations.
  • Homestay operators may be required to maintain accurate guest records, verify identity documents and cooperate with law-enforcement agencies whenever necessary.
  • Issues relating to pricing, cancellation policies, amenities offered, refunds, hidden charges, quality of accommodation, and redressal of grievances frequently arise. Uniform disclosure standards and minimum service requirements would provide certainty to consumers and reduce disputes.
  • There is a need to prescribe minimum standards relating to sanitation, cleanliness, drinking water, waste disposal, sewage management and environmental sustainability.
  • A consolidated regulatory framework to facilitate compliance and improve administrative efficiency in aspects relating to tourism, food safety, fire safety, local administration, public health, police verification, taxation and environmental compliance.
  • There is a need for a structured inspection and enforcement mechanism.
  • A distinction may also be required between small family-run homestays and larger commercial establishments operating under the nomenclature of homestays.

The Bench concluded the matter by observing, “A comprehensive policy or regulatory framework addressing the aforesaid aspects would serve multiple public purposes. It would enhance tourist safety, promote confidence in Karnataka as a tourist destination, ensure uniformity in enforcement, reduce regulatory ambiguity, facilitate ease of compliance for operators, protect neighbouring communities, minimise avoidable litigation and foster sustainable growth of the tourism sector.”

Cause Title: Sri P A Ponnappa v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:28345)

Click here to read/download Order


Karnataka High CourtJustice Suraj Govindaraj

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.