New Delhi: Underlining the need to formulate a new, comprehensive policy for governing the establishment, operation and supervision of homestays, the Karnataka High Court has come out with a set of directions which can in the long run enhance tourist safety, promote confidence and foster sustainable growth in its tourism sector.
Among the host of guidelines were directions to maintain fire safety, sanitation requirements, law and order, food safety laws, and the need for a structured inspection and enforcement mechanism.
The order comes in the case related to the sexual assault of an American national at a homestay in Kodagu district, in April.
Significantly, it also comes in the backdrop of a deadly fire at a Delhi homestay that claimed 23 lives in the first week of June, thereby bringing into focus the unauthorised mushrooming of homestays in India.
The guidelines, to be in operation until Karnataka formalises a policy on homestays, could act as a template for other states to regulate such spaces that have increasingly become a preferable option for accommodation for both foreign and domestic tourists in India.
A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindraj also noted that given the increasing importance of the homestay sector, and the recurring legal disputes, the principal secretary, Department of Tourism, Karnataka could consult with its departments, and examine the feasibility of formulating a comprehensive policy for supervising homestays.
Such a policy, the HC said, would serve multiple purposes such as protecting neighbouring communities, ensuring uniformity in enforcement, reducing regulatory ambiguity and facilitating the ease of compliance for operators minimising avoidable litigation.
It “would also assist authorities in taking informed and legally sustainable decisions while ensuring that actions affecting homestay operators are undertaken in a fair, transparent and predictable manner,” the court said in its 11 July order, which was uploaded officially on Wednesday evening.
These observations were made by the court while acting on the petition of the homestay owner, P.A.Ponappa, who was seeking to challenge the cancellation of his license following the rape of the foreigner.
Also Read: Malviya Nagar fire puts focus on Delhi’s draft B&B rules unveiled just last week. What they say
The homestay owner’s case
In the present case, Ponappa sought quashing of a 22 April order, issued by the Karnataka government, cancelling his license to run the homestay.
He challenged the cancellation on grounds that it had been done without issuing him any prior notice or giving any opportunity of hearing. This, the homestay owner contended, violated the principles of natural justice, and the principle of Audi alteram partem—a Latin maxim invoked in law to say that the other side must be heard as well.
Invoking the Karnataka Tourism Trade (Facilitation and Regulation) Act, 2015, the petitioner said that Section 13 of the Act outlines the procedure for the cancellation of registration and recognition of an establishment, if requirements relating to registration, recognition or grading are not met.
However, there is an inbuilt safeguard in this provision, i.e., it requires at least 30 days notice to be given to the establishment. This, Ponappa argued, was not followed in his case.
The homestay owner also said that the cancellation order was passed without informing him of the deficiencies or infirmities, or even the allegations against him.
Since the 2015 Act governs the tourism-related establishments in Karnataka, he said, any action affecting their registration or functioning must conform to the prescribed procedure.
The Act was brought about with the purpose of bringing about more transparency and fairness in the exercise of regulatory powers in the tourism sector, Ponappa argued, adding that the procedural safeguards in the statute “are not empty formalities”.
These safeguards are intended to protect operators from arbitrary action and to ensure that any adverse decision is taken only after due consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances, he said.
What court ruled
The HC agreed that the 2015 Act does provide for the regulation of tourism establishments, including homestays, but added that the operation of such homestays entails numerous aspects which cannot be addressed through registration under the particular law itself.
“A homestay is not merely a commercial establishment; it is a place where members of the public reside, often for extended periods, and where food, accommodation and related services are provided,” it said, adding that considerations of public safety, health, hygiene, security, consumer protection and civic compliance assume considerable significance in such cases.
Firstly, the court said that the issue of fire safety needs to be looked at as many homestays operate from residential buildings, which may not have been designed to accommodate transient guests.
“Adequate fire prevention measures, emergency exits, firefighting equipment, evacuation protocols and periodic inspections are essential to safeguard the lives of guests and occupants,” it said.
Secondly, where food is prepared and served to guests, compliance with applicable food safety standards becomes imperative. Kitchens must conform to hygiene requirements, storage norms and quality standards prescribed under food safety laws, it said.
Besides this, ensuring compliance with zoning regulations, building by-laws, occupancy norms, sanitation requirements and waste management obligations is also essential, it said, adding that criminal backgrounds of guests must be checked before granting them accommodation.
The HC also said that minimum standards must be ensured for sanitation, cleanliness, drinking water, waste disposal, sewage management and environmental sustainability, among other things.
The judge then modified the 22 April order issued by the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman, District Tourism and Development Committee, and said that it was now in the nature of a show-cause notice.
Ponappa will have to submit his response to the notice by 24 June.
The matter will be taken up for further hearing 20 June to enable the tourism principal secretary place the policy formulated on record.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: There’s no demand for safety in India’s adventure industry. Tourists should ask questions