Mysuru administrative review forum denies challenge to renewal rejection and fee-free reconsideration

The Administrative review forum, Mysuru denied Nandita Hegde’s request to set aside the Mysuru Municipal Licensing Desk’s rejection of her renewal application and direct reconsideration without a second application fee. The rejection dated 12 June 2026 remains in place.

The forum held that Hegde had established payment of the ₹1,200 renewal fee, but had not proved that the receipt accompanied her application or that the desk wrongly rejected it. Her request was for reconsideration of the existing application, not automatic approval of the renewal.

No renewal approval, payment award or other monetary relief was ordered. The judgment expressly distinguished the denial of administrative relief from any finding that Hegde had failed to pay.

The forum treated the payment receipt and rejection notice as evidence of different matters. The receipt bearing Hegde’s name recorded payment on 8 June 2026, a day before submission of the application. It did not establish that the desk received a readable copy with the application.

The rejection notice stated that the required receipt was unavailable for review and described the application as incomplete. Although it did not distinguish between a missing, unreadable or otherwise inaccessible receipt, the forum found that it supplied a stated reason for rejection.

The desk had not produced an application file, upload record or other review record showing what the clerk opened. Its account that the clerk found no readable receipt was not independently verified. The forum held that this gap reduced the weight of the desk’s explanation under Rule 45, which requires record support for administrative findings.

However, under Rule 1, Hegde retained the burden of supporting her request with specific facts, records or testimony. She had not shown that the receipt was submitted, overlooked or wrongly treated as unavailable. The forum declined to assume either that she attached it or that the reviewer properly examined every submitted file.

Applying Rule 7 on fair procedure, the forum found that the notice’s lack of specificity and the missing review record did not establish unfairness sufficient to set aside the rejection. It also held that, although reconsideration was a limited remedy, Rule 6 required relief to correspond to proven harm.

Hegde argued that the notice failed to explain whether her receipt was missing or unreadable, while the desk had not shown what its reviewer examined. She acknowledged that the payment receipt did not prove attachment, but sought a fresh review without another application fee rather than automatic renewal.

The desk initially maintained that the receipt was unreadable and relied on the clerk’s reported observation that no readable receipt was found. Its final submission asserted that there was no evidence of payment.

The forum rejected that final assertion as contradicted by the receipt. It also held that the desk’s general references to fraudulent applications and strict review practices did not establish fraud by Hegde or support rejection of her particular application.

Application MSL-2468 was submitted on 9 June 2026 and rejected three days later. The available record did not specify the purpose of the licence. The parties made final submissions, and no further obtainable proof was identified; adjournment was not permitted in the forum.

The outcome leaves this rejection undisturbed because Hegde did not prove a basis for the requested relief. It does not establish non-payment or fraud, and it does not decide whether she has any option outside this proceeding.