Karnataka High Court
Eshwar vs The Commissioner Of Police on 30 June, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.202450 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
ESHWAR
S/O SHIVSHARANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC: PVT WORK
R/O H.NO.110, PRAGATI COLONY
SEDAM ROAD
KALABURAGI - 585 105.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHD UMER JUNAIDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
KALABURAGI CITY
Digitally signed
by SWETA KALABURAGI - 585 103.
KULKARNI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
KALABURAGI CITY
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
3. POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
CHOWK POLICE STATION
KALABURAGI 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ALONG WITH
SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
EXTERNMENT ORDER BEARING DATED 20.05.2026 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents.
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following
reliefs:
“a) Quash the externment order bearing
No.¸ÀA:03/UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ/JªÀiï.J.f-2/PÀ.£À/2026 dated 20.05.2026
vide Annexure-C, passed by respondent No.2;
b) Quash the show cause notice dated 28.04.2026
passed by R2 vide Annexure-B;
c) Pass such other order as this Court deems just
and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Additional Government Advocate for the
respondents and perused the material on record.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. A perusal of the material on record including
the Externment order will indicate that the respondents
have referred to six cases against the petitioner out of
which, petitioner has been acquitted in five cases as can
be seen from the judgments passed in the said case and
the only case which is pending against the petitioner is at
the stage of investigation.
4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate
that the only ground on which the respondents have
proceeded to pass an order of externment against the
petitioner is by taking into account the pendency of
criminal cases against the petitioner. In this context, it is
relevant to state that mere pendency of criminal cases
against the petitioner, without any other supporting
material or without any other cogent or valid reasons,
could not have been made the basis to pass an
externment order against the petitioner as held by the
Apex Court in the case of Deepak vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99 which
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
is followed by this Court in the case of Sachin M.R. vs.
The State of Karnataka and Ors. in
W.P.No.9727/2024 dated 05.04.2024 wherein it has
held as under:
“The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
an order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the second
respondent Assistant Commissioner/Sub-Divisional
Magistrate invoking his power under Section 55 of the
Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (‘Act’ for short) externing
the petitioner from Mysore to Davangere with effect
from 20.03.2024 up to 10.06.2024.
2. Heard Mr.K.V.Sateesh Chandra, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr.K.P.Yoganna, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondent.
3. The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of
Mallahalli Village, Mysore District and claims to be
doing business as his avocation and is residing with his
family members. The petitioner during his stay at
Mysore appears to have got embroiled in several cases.
The cases pending against the petitioner as on today is
depicted to be Crime No.46 of 2021 before the Varuna
Police Station, Mysore for offences punishable under
Sections 504, 323, 143, 147 and 149 of the IPC. The
said case is pending investigation. The other crime is
Crime No.167 of 2022 against before the same police
station for the same offences except in addition of the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The
third crime is for the offence punishable under Section
107 of the Cr.P.C. which is stayed by the learned
Sessions Judge itself.
4. Things standing thus, it transpires that the 3rd
respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police submits a
report to the 2nd respondent recommending passage of
an order under Section 55 of the Act and externing the
petitioner. Based upon the said recommendation, a
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026HC-KAR
show cause notice comes to be issued by the 2nd
respondent upon the petitioner seeking to show cause
as to why an order of externment should not be passed
against him and directs him to appear before him on
20.03.2024 at 11.00 a.m. Though the show cause
notice depicts the dated as 20.02.2023, it appears to
be a typographical error, as it is signed by the 2nd
respondent on 18.03.2024 at 12.59 p.m. Therefore, the
date of appearance is taken as 20.03.2024.
5. The petitioner seeks to appear before him on
20.03.2024 only to receive an order of externment
externing the petitioner from Mysore to Davangere
from 20.03.2024 up to 10.06.2024. It is this order that
had driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject
petition having filed the same on 27.03.2024. After
filing of the said petition, a corrigendum comes to be
issued on 28.03.2024 again moving the petitioner from
Davangere to Tumkur.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would vehemently contend that the fundamental right
of the petitioner is taken away completely contrary to
the Act. The show cause notice so issued upon the
petitioner did not append to it the report that was
against him, which is mandatory in law. The petitioner
was though issued a show cause notice to appear
before the 2nd respondent on 20.03.2024, even before
he could submit anything, the order is passed. He
would contend that the provisions of the Act are
completely violated in the case at hand.
7. The learned Additional Government Advocate would
submit that his submissions may be treated as
objections to the petition. He would further submit that
the facts narrated are all a matter of record. The show
cause notice is issued 16.03.2024 and the order is
passed on 20.03.2024. He would tacitly admit the
violation of the provisions of Act and the orders passed
by this Court on the issue.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel
and have perused the material on record.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
9. Before embarking upon consideration of the case on
its merits, I deem it appropriate to notice the legal
frame work under which order of externment could be
passed against any person. Chapter-II of the Act deals
with dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons convicted
of certain offences. Section 54 deals with dispersal of
gangs and bodies of persons which is applicable to the
case at hand. What is germane to be noticed is
Sections 55 to 60 and they read as follows:-
“55. Removal of persons about to commit
offences.–Whenever it shall appear in the City
of Bangalore and other areas for which a
Commissioner has been appointed under
section 7 to the Commissioner, and in other
area or areas to which the Government may, by
notification in the official Gazette, extend the
provision of this section, to the District
Magistrate, or the Sub Divisional Magistrate
having jurisdiction and specially empowered by
the Government in that behalf,–
(a) that the movements or acts of any person
are causing or calculated to cause alarm,
danger or harm to person or property, or
(b) that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that such person is engaged or is
about to be engaged in the commission of an
offence involving force or violence or an offence
punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of
the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of
any such offence, and when in the opinion of
such officer witnesses are not willing to come
forward to give evidence in public against such
person by reason of apprehension on their part
as regards the safety of their person or
property, or
(c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is
likely to result from the continued residence of
an immigrant, the said officer may, by an order
in writing duly served on him, or by beat of
drum or otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such
person or immigrant so to conduct himself as
shall seem necessary in order to prevent
violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026HC-KAR
such disease or to remove himself outside the
area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or
such area and any district or districts or any
part thereof contiguous thereto by such route
and within such time as the said officer may
specify and not to enter, or return to the said
place from which he was directed to remove
himself.
56. Removal of persons convicted of certain
offences.–If a person has been convicted at
any time either before or after the
commencement of this Act,–
(a) of an offence under Chapter XII, XVI or
XVII of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45
of 1860); or
(b) of an offence under section 6 of 13 of the
Mysore Mines Act, 1906 (Mysore Act 4 of 1906);
or
(c) of an offence under section 86 of the
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act 5 of
1964); or
(d) twice of an offence under Section 19 of the
Mysore Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1944
(Mysore Act 33 of 1944) or any other
corresponding law in force in any area of the
State; or
(e) twice of an offence under the Suppression
of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act,
1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956); or
(f) twice of an offence under the Untouchability
(Offences) Act, 1955 (Central Act 22 of 1955);
or
(g) thrice of an offence within a period of three
years under section 78, 79 or 80 of this Act; or
(h) thrice of an offence within a period of three
years under sections 32, 34, 37 or 38A of the
Karnataka Excise Act 1965, (Karnataka Act 21
of 1966),the Commissioner, the District
Magistrate, or any Sub-divisional Magistrate
specially empowered by the Government in this
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
behalf, if he has reason to believe that such
person is likely again to engage himself in the
commission of an offence similar to that for
which he was convicted, may direct such
person to remove himself outside the area
within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such
area or any district or districts or any part
thereof contiguous thereto, by such route and
within such time as the said officer may specify
and not to enter or return to the place from
which he was directed to remove himself.
Explanation.–For the purpose of this section
“an offence similar to that for which a person
was convicted” shall mean,–
(i) in the case of a person convicted of an
offence mentioned in clause (a), an offence
falling under any of the Chapters of the Indian
Penal Code mentioned in that clause; and
(ii) in the case of person convicted of an
offence mentioned in clauses (e) and (f), an
offence falling under the provisions of the Acts
mentioned respectively in the said clauses.
57. Period of operation of orders under section
54, 55 or 56.–A direction made under section
54, 55 or 56 not to enter any particular area or
such area and any district or districts or any
part thereof, contiguous thereto shall be for
such period as may be specified therein and
shall in no case exceed a period of two years
from the date on which it was made.
58. Hearing to be given before an order is
passed under section 54, 55 or 56.– (1) Before
an order under section 54, 55 or 56 is passed
against any person, the officer acting under any
of the said sections or any officer above the
rank of an Inspector authorised by that officer
shall inform the person in writing of the general
nature of the material allegations against him
and give him a reasonable opportunity of
tendering an explanation regarding them. If
such person makes an application for the
examination of any witness, produced by him,
the authority or officer concerned shall grant
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
such application and examine such witness,
unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the
authority or officer is of opinion that such
application is made for the purpose of vexation
or delay. Any written statement put in by such
person shall be filed with the record of the
case. Such person shall be entitled to appear
before the officer proceeding under this section
by a legal practitioner for the purposes of
tendering his explanation and examining the
witnesses produced by him.
(2) The authority or officer proceeding under
sub-section (1) may, for the purpose of
securing the attendance of any person against
whom any order is proposed to be made under
section 54, 55 or 56 require such person to
appear before him and to furnish a security
bond with or without sureties for such
attendance during the inquiry. If the person
fails to furnish the security bond as required or
fails to appear before the officer or authority
during the inquiry, it shall be lawful to the
officer or authority to proceed with the inquiry
and thereupon such order as was proposed to
be passed against him may be passed.
59. Appeal.–Any person aggrieved by an order
made under section 54, 55 or 56 may appeal to
the Government within thirty days from the
date of such order.
60. Finality of orders.–Any order passed under
section 54, 55 or 56 or by the Government
under section 59 shall not be called in question
in any court except on the ground that the
authority making the order or any officer
authorised by it had not followed the procedure
laid down in sub section (1) of section 58 or
that there was no material before the authority
concerned upon which it could have based its
order or on the ground that the said authority
was not of opinion that witnesses were
unwilling to come forward to give evidence in
public against the person in respect of whom an
order was made under section 55.”
(Emphasis supplied)
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
Section 55 deals with, removal of persons who are
about to commit offences. Whenever it appears in the
city of Bangalore or other areas that movements or
acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause
alarm, danger or harm to person or property, such
person can be removed from that area by passing an
order of externment. Section 56 deals with removal of
persons convicted of certain offences. Section 57 deals
with period of operation of orders passed under
Sections 54, 55 or 56. Therefore, Section 57 mandates
that the period should be indicated in the order.
Section 58 mandates that an opportunity of hearing
should be rendered to the person against whom the
order is to be passed under Sections 54, 55 or 56.
Section 59 permits any person aggrieved by orders
passed under Sections 54, 55 or 56 to appeal to the
Government within 30 days from the date of such
order. This is the statutory frame work under which
orders of externment can be passed against any
person.
10. Section 58 needs to be considered with certain
emphasis. Section 58 is the provision which depicts
grant of reasonable opportunity to the person against
whom an order of externment would be passed.
Section 58 mandates that the Officer acting under
Sections 54, 55 and 56 shall inform the person in
writing of the general nature of material allegations
against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of
tendering an explanation regarding them. If such a
person makes an application for examination of any
witness the officer shall grant such application, unless
for reasons to be recorded in writing the Officer is of
the opinion that the application is filed for the purpose
of vexation or delay. Therefore, the provision makes it
mandatory for grant of reasonable opportunity and also
permits the person against whom order of externment
is to be passed to call any witness and examine him by
filing an application. If this is the right conferred upon a
person under Section 58, the report on which he is to
be externed must be mandatorily supplied which would
include the notice so issued to the person against
whom externment order is pending issuance. There
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
cannot be any other interpretation of the aforesaid
provision as it is in the realm of grant of a reasonable
opportunity before taking away the fundamental right
of any person.
11. The case of the petitioner merits consideration on
the touchstone of the statute quoted hereinabove. The
three crimes pending against the petitioner are as
afore-narrated. The show cause notice referred to all
the three crimes. Two of the crime for the offences
under the IPC and the third for offences punishable
under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. He was directed to
appear on 20.03.2024. The notice is dated 16.03.2024.
It is signed on 18.03.2024 and the petitioner is said to
have been served and directed for appearance within 2
days. The notice as is required does not append the
report by respondent No.3. On the day on which the
petitioner was directed to appear, the impugned order
is passed. Verbatim similar to what was obtaining in
the show cause notice. There is not a whisper in the
order about the notice being sent or received by the
petitioner and his reply being submitted.
12. The 2nd respondent has blatantly and blissfully
ignored the rigour of the statute. It is trite that an
order of externment takes away the fundamental right
of a citizen. Merely because crimes are pending against
a person, he does not become a convict unless he is
convicted, therefore, all the rigour of the statute must
be complied with before any order of externment can
be passed against any citizen. The show cause notice
issued to the petitioner appears to be a farce and
issued only for the purpose of a make believe
compliance of the statute, not to afford any
opportunity, in real time, to the petitioner. The Apex
Court in the case of DEEPAK v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA (2022 SCC OnLine SC 99) has
considered the purport of the order of externment and
its impact upon the fundamental right of the person.
The Apex Court considers the Maharashtra Police
Manual which is in pari materia with the Act and holds
as follows:
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026HC-KAR
“6. We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. Under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the
Constitution of India, there is a fundamental right
conferred on the citizens to move freely throughout
the territory of India. In view of clause (5) of Article
19, State is empowered to make a law enabling the
imposition of reasonable restrictions on the exercise
of the right conferred by clause (d). An order of
externment passed under provisions of Section 56 of
the 1951 Act imposes a restraint on the person
against whom the order is made from entering a
particular area. Thus, such orders infringe the
fundamental right guaranteed under Article
19(1)(d). Hence, the restriction imposed by passing
an order of externment must stand the test of
reasonableness.
7. Section 56 of the 1951 Act reads thus:
“56. Removal of persons about to commit offence-
(1) Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and
other areas for which a Commissioner has been
appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner and
in other area or areas to which the State
Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, extend the provisions of this section, to the
District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
specially empowered by the State Government in
that behalf (a) that the movements or acts of any
person are causing or calculated to cause alarm,
danger or harm to person or property or (b) that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that such
person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the
commission of an offence involving force or violence
or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or
XVII of the Penal Code, 1860, or in the abetment of
any such offence and when in the opinion of such
officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to
give evidence in public against such person by
reason of apprehension on their part as regards the
safety of their person or property, or [(bb) that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that such
person is acting or is about to act (1) in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as
defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of
Communal, Antisocial and other Dangerous
Activities Act, 1980 or (2) in any manner prejudicial
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
to the maintenance or supplies of commodities
essential to the community as defined in the
Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the
Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of
Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, or (c)
that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to
result from the continued residence of an
immigrant, the said officer may , by an order in
writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or
otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such person or
immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem
necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm [or
such prejudicial act], or the outbreak or spread of
such disease or [notwithstanding anything contained
in this Act or any other law for the time being in
force, to remove himself outside such area or areas
in the State of Maharashtra (whether within the
local limits of the jurisdiction of the officer or not
and whether contiguous or not), by such route, and
within such time, as the officer may specify and not
to enter or return to the area or areas specified
(hereinafter referred to as “the specified area or
areas”) from which he was directed to remove
himself.
(2) An officer directing any person under sub-
section (1) to remove himself from any specified
area or areas in the State may further direct such
person that during the period the order made
against him is in force, as and when he resides in
any other areas in the State, he shall report his
place of residence to the officer-in-charge of the
nearest police station once in every month, even if
there be no change in his address. The said officer
may also direct that, during the said period, as and
when he goes away from the State, he shall, within
ten days from the date of his departure from the
State send a report in writing to the said officer,
either by post or otherwise, of the date of his
departure, and as and when he comes back to the
State he shall, within ten days, from the date of his
arrival in the State, report the date of his arrival to
the officer-in-charge of the police station nearest to
the place where he may be staying.
(underline supplied)
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
8. A perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 56 shows
that there are distinct grounds specified under sub-
section (1) of Section 56 for passing an order of
externment. The said grounds are in clauses (a),
(b), (bb), and (c). In the present case, clauses (a)
and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the 1951
Act have been invoked. The ground in clause (a) is
that the movements or acts of any person are
causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or
harm to a person or property. The ground in clause
(b) is that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that such person is engaged or is about to
be engaged in the commission of an offence
involving force or violence or an offence punishable
under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII in IPC, or the
abetment of any such offence. Clause (b) is qualified
by a condition that the competent authority
empowered to pass such order should be of the
opinion that witnesses are not willing to come
forward to give evidence in public against such
person by reason of apprehension on their part as
regards the safety of their person or property.
Obviously, the opinion must be formed on the basis
of material on record.
9. As observed earlier, Section 56 makes serious
inroads on the personal liberty of a citizen
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the
Constitution of India. In the case of Pandharinath
Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr. of Police, State
of Maharashtra1 in paragraph 9, this Court has held
that the reasons which necessitate or justify the
passing of an extraordinary order of externment
arise out of extraordinary circumstances. In the
same decision, this Court held that care must be
taken to ensure that the requirement of giving a
hearing under Section 59 of the 1951 Act is strictly
complied with. This Court also held that the
requirements of Section 56 must be strictly
complied with.
10. There cannot be any manner of doubt that an
order of externment is an extraordinary measure.
The effect of the order of externment is of depriving
a citizen of his fundamental right of free movement
throughout the territory of India. In practical terms,
such an order prevents the person even from
staying in his own house along with his family
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
members during the period for which this order is in
subsistence. In a given case, such order may
deprive the person of his livelihood. It thus follows
that recourse should be taken to Section 56 very
sparingly keeping in mind that it is an extraordinary
measure. For invoking clause (a) of sub-section (1)
of Section 56, there must be objective material on
record on the basis of which the competent
authority must record its subjective satisfaction that
the movements or acts of any person are causing or
calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to
persons or property. For passing an order under
clause (b), there must be objective material on the
basis of which the competent authority must record
subjective satisfaction that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that such person is engaged or
is about to be engaged in the commission of an
offence involving force or violence or offences
punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the
IPC. Offences under Chapter XII are relating to Coin
and Government Stamps. Offences under Chapter
XVI are offences affecting the human body and
offences under Chapter XVII are offences relating to
the property. In a given case, even if multiple
offences have been registered which are referred in
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 against
an individual, that by itself is not sufficient to pass
an order of externment under clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 56. Moreover, when clause (b)
is sought to be invoked, on the basis of material on
record, the competent authority must be satisfied
that witnesses are not willing to come forward to
give evidence against the person proposed to be
externed by reason of apprehension on their part as
regards their safety or their property. The recording
of such subjective satisfaction by the competent
authority is sine qua non for passing a valid order of
externment under clause (b).
11. On 2nd June 2019, the Police Inspector of
Badnapur Police Station, District Jalna submitted a
proposal to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at
Badnapur for permitting detention of the appellant
for a period of 15 days by invoking provisions of
sub-section (3) of Section 151 of Cr.PC (as inserted
by the Maharashtra Act No. 7 of 1981). In the said
proposal, reliance was placed on the same six
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
offences registered against the appellant, which
were made a part of the show-cause notice dated
7th July 2020 on the basis of which the impugned
order of externment was passed. The police arrested
the appellant and produced him on 2nd June 2020
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class
along with the aforesaid proposal. By the order
dated 2nd June 2020 (Annexure P-4), the learned
Judicial Magistrate rejected the said proposal to
detain the appellant and directed his immediate
release subject to the condition of attending the
concerned Police Station between 10 am to 1 pm till
9th June 2020.
12. The power under sub-section (3) of Section 151
as amended for the State of Maharashtra is to arrest
a person on the basis of an apprehension that he is
likely to continue the design to commit, or is likely
to commit a cognizable offence after his release and
that the circumstances of the case are such that his
presence is likely to be prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. The learned Judicial
Magistrate rejected the proposal to keep the
appellant in detention for 15 days. There is nothing
placed on record to show that the said order was
challenged by the police. After having failed to
satisfy the learned Judicial Magistrate about the
necessity of detaining the appellant for 15 days, the
Sub-Divisional Police Officer initiated action of
externment against him by issuing a show-cause
notice on 7th July 2020. It is not the case made out
in the show cause notice dated 7th July 2020 that
after release of the appellant on 2nd June 2020, the
appellant indulged in the commission of any offence
or any other objectionable activity.
13. Considering the nature of the power under
Section 56, the competent authority is not expected
to write a judgment containing elaborate reasons.
However, the competent authority must record its
subjective satisfaction of the existence of one of the
grounds in sub-section (1) of Section 56 on the
basis of objective material placed before it. Though
the competent authority is not required to record
reasons on par with a judicial order, when
challenged, the competent authority must be in a
position to show the application of mind. The Court
while testing the order of externment cannot go into
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
the question of sufficiency of material based on
which the subjective satisfaction has been recorded.
However, the Court can always consider whether
there existed any material on the basis of which a
subjective satisfaction could have been recorded.
The Court can interfere when either there is no
material or the relevant material has not been
considered. The Court cannot interfere because
there is a possibility of another view being taken. As
in the case of any other administrative order, the
judicial review is permissible on the grounds of mala
fide, unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
14. In the facts of the case, the non-application of
mind is apparent on the face of the record as the
order dated 2nd June 2020 of the learned Judicial
Magistrate is not even considered in the impugned
order of externment though the appellant
specifically relied upon it in his reply. This is very
relevant as the appellant was sought to be detained
under sub-section (3) of Section 151 of Cr.PC for a
period of 15 days on the basis of the same offences
which are relied upon in the impugned order of
externment. As mentioned earlier, from 2nd June
2020 till the passing of the impugned order of
externment, the appellant is not shown to be
involved in any objectionable activity. The impugned
order appears to have been passed casually in a
cavalier manner. The first three offences relied upon
are of 2013 and 2018 which are stale offences in the
sense that there is no live link between the said
offences and the necessity of passing an order of
externment in the year 2020. The two offences of
2020 alleged against the appellant are against two
individuals. The first one is the daughter of the said
MLA and the other is the said Varsha Bankar. There
is material on record to show that the said Varsha
Bankar was acting as per the instructions of the
brother of the said MLA. The said two offences are in
respect of individuals. There is no material on record
to show that witnesses were not coming forward to
depose in these two cases. Therefore, both clauses
(a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Section 56 are not
attracted.
15. As the order impugned takes away fundamental
right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of
India, it must stand the test of reasonableness
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
contemplated by clause (5) of Article 19.
Considering the bare facts on record, the said order
shows non-application of mind and smacks of
arbitrariness. Therefore, it becomes vulnerable. The
order cannot be sustained in law.
16. Section 58 of the 1951 Act reads thus:
“58. Period of operation of orders under section 55,
56, 57 and 57A – A direction made under section 55,
56, 57 and 57A not to enter any particular area or
such area and any District or Districts, or any part
thereof, contiguous thereto, or any specified area or
areas as the case maybe, shall be for such period as
may be specified therein and shall in no case exceed
a period of two years from the date on which the
person removes himself or is removed from the
area, District or Districts or part aforesaid or from
the specified area or areas as the case may be”.
17. On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent
that while passing an order under Section 56, the
competent authority must mention the area or
District or Districts in respect of which the order has
been made. Moreover, the competent authority is
required to specify the period for which the
restriction will remain in force. The maximum period
provided for is of two years. Therefore, an
application of mind on the part of the competent
authority is required for deciding the duration of the
restraint order under Section 56. On the basis of
objective assessment of the material on record, the
authority has to record its subjective satisfaction
that the restriction should be imposed for a specific
period. When the competent authority passes an
order for the maximum permissible period of two
years, the order of externment must disclose an
application of mind by the competent authority and
the order must record its subjective satisfaction
about the necessity of passing an order of
externment for the maximum period of two years
which is based on material on record. Careful
perusal of the impugned order of externment dated
15th December 2020 shows that it does not disclose
any application of mind on this aspect. It does not
record the subjective satisfaction of the respondent
no. 2 on the basis of material on record that the
order of externment should be for the maximum
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
period of two years. If the order of externment for
the maximum permissible period of two years is
passed without recording subjective satisfaction
regarding the necessity of extending the order of
externment to the maximum permissible period, it
will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions
on the fundamental right guaranteed under clause
(d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court clearly holds that externment is not an
ordinary measure and must be resorted to sparingly,
only in extraordinary circumstances, as an order of
externment takes away the fundamental right of
movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, the Apex Court has clearly held that it
must stand the test of reasonableness as contemplated
in Clause (5) of Article 19 of Constitution of India.
Since the interpretation of the Apex Court of the
provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act are in pari
materia with the Act, it would become applicable to the
case at hand. The crux of the provision is that there
should be minimum proximity or necessity for passing
an order of externment against any person, in the case
at hand the petitioner. The act of the 2nd respondent is
undoubtedly contrary to the statue and in blissful
ignorance of the law.
13. This Court has time and again laid down in the
cases of SRI.T.ROOPESH KUMAR @ ROOPI VS. STATE
OF KARNATAKA in Writ Petition No.392 of 2023 dated
21.03.2023 and MAHANTAYYA VS. THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA in Writ Petition No.104804 of 2023 dated
08.08.2023 that the rigour of the statute as quoted
supra must be adhered to while taking away the
fundamental right of movement of the person. These
judgments were rendered following the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK supra. All these are
given a complete go-by by the 2nd respondent. What is
more shocking is after the passage of the order of
externment against the petitioner, externing him from
Mysore to Davangere, on 20.03.2024 a corrigendum is
issued, modifying the externment from Davangere to
Tumkur, on 28.03.2024, the petitioner is treated as a
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
chattel in the hands of the 2nd respondent and his
personal liberty is eroded in a cavalier manner. The 2nd
respondent cannot treat his office as his personal
fiefdom and misuse the power conferred upon him
under the Act. He is bound by the rule of law.
14. There are several safeguards for passage of an
order of externment upon the person against whom it
is sought to be passed. These are procedural
safeguards. It is trite that procedural safeguards are
the life blood of liberty, which cannot be treated or
taken away in the manner that it is done in the case at
hand. It is also to be noticed that the orders passed by
this Court and the Apex Court are deliberately or
blissfully ignored by the 2nd respondent, as there is not
even a semblance of compliance either of the statute or
the orders passed by this Court. Therefore, the
State/the 2nd respondent is hereby admonished that
any repetition of the kind of the orders that is passed in
deliberate defiance to the orders passed by the Apex
Court or this Court would fringe on the borders of
contumacious contempt on the part of the State.
Therefore, such acts iterated through such orders
would be viewed seriously. It thus becomes necessary
to direct the Chief Secretary of the State, to take note
of the situation, and issue a circular for appropriate
passage of the orders of externment, bearing in mind
the observations made in the course of the order. This
would prevent abuse of the office and mushrooming of
cases filed before this Court.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 20.03.2024, in
MYSAC/MAG/MAG/43/2024 E – 384634, passed by the
second respondent is hereby quashed.
(iii) Liberty is reserved to the State to take action in
accordance with law, in the event it becomes necessary
in law and if it becomes necessary, action shall be
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
taken, bearing in mind the observations made in the
course of the order.
(iv) The Registry is directed to communicate/transmit a
copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government
of Karnataka for its compliance, forthwith.
(v) The compliance of issuance of a circular shall be
made within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of the order and shall report such compliance to the
Registry of this Court in the case at hand.”
5. So also, in the recent judgment of this Court in
the case of Rachappa vs. The State of Karnataka and
Ors. passed in W.P.No.7930/2026 dated 18.03.2026
it has held as under:
“The petitioner has called in question the externment
order dated 24.12.2025 passed by respondent No.2
under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for
short “the Act”) whereby the petitioner has been
externed from Chamarajanagar District to Kalaburagi
District for a period of six months.
2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are
that respondent No.3 submitted a report alleging that
the petitioner had constructed a house illegally within
the jurisdiction of Shri Malemahadeshwara Swamy
Kshetra Development Authority and was illegally
storing liquor in the said house and selling the same to
the public at hiked prices. It was also alleged that the
petitioner was using local youth to assist him in the
illegal sale of liquor. Based on the said report, a
criminal case came to be registered against the
petitioner. It is further alleged that there are three
other criminal cases pending against the petitioner.
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026HC-KAR
3. On the basis of the said report, respondent No.2
initiated proceedings against the petitioner under
Section 55 of the Act in proceedings bearing No.
M.A.G(GA)CR/23/2025. A show cause notice under
Section 58 of the Act was issued to the petitioner and
the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing.
Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed the impugned
order directing externment of the petitioner from
Chamarajanagar District to Kalaburagi District for a
period of six months.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
contend that the impugned order is illegal and
arbitrary. He would submit that the order is passed
solely on the ground that three criminal cases are
pending against the petitioner under the provisions of
the Excise Act, 1965. Mere pendency of criminal cases,
without there being any material demonstrating that
the petitioner’s activities are prejudicial to public order
or public safety, cannot constitute a ground for
invoking the drastic power of externment. He would
further contend that the impugned order does not
assign cogent reasons and therefore the order is not a
speaking order. In support of his contention, reliance is
placed on the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in W.P. No.871/2023 DD.2.3.2023.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government
Advocate would submit that the petitioner is involved in
illegal sale of liquor and that his activities were creating
nuisance and disturbance in the locality. It is contended
that after issuing notice under Section 58 of the Act
and after affording an opportunity of hearing,
respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order and
therefore the same does not warrant interference.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material placed on record.
7. The power of externment conferred under Section 55
of the Act is an extraordinary measure which directly
affects the fundamental right of a citizen to reside and
move freely. Such power has to be exercised sparingly
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026HC-KAR
and strictly in accordance with the statutory
requirements.
8. A careful perusal of the impugned order indicates
that respondent No.2 has primarily relied upon the fact
that three criminal cases are pending against the
petitioner under the provisions of the Excise Act, 1965.
Except referring to the pendency of the said cases and
the report submitted by respondent No.3, the order
does not disclose any material to demonstrate that the
presence of the petitioner in the district is hazardous to
public order or that witnesses are unwilling to come
forward to depose against him due to fear.
9. Mere allegations that the petitioner is illegally storing
or selling liquor would not, by themselves, attract the
provisions of the Act, particularly Section 55 of the Act.
The power of externment under Section 55 of the Act is
an extraordinary preventive measure and can be
invoked only when the competent authority is satisfied
that the movements or acts of a person are causing
alarm, danger, or harm to persons or property, and
that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give
evidence against such person by reason of
apprehension for their safety.
10. Externment proceedings cannot be resorted to as a
substitute for ordinary criminal prosecution. If the
allegation is that the petitioner is involved in illegal sale
of liquor, the appropriate course for the authorities is to
proceed against him under the relevant provisions of
the Excise law. Preventive action under Section 55 of
the Act cannot be invoked merely on the basis of such
allegations unless there is cogent material showing that
the activities of the person pose a threat to public
peace and safety.
11. It is well settled that mere pendency of criminal
cases cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for
passing an order of externment. The authority
exercising powers under Section 55 of the Act is
required to record a subjective satisfaction, based on
tangible material, that the movements or acts of the
person are causing alarm, danger or harm to persons
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026HC-KAR
or property and that witnesses are not willing to come
forward to give evidence in public due to apprehension.
The impugned order is conspicuously silent on these
aspects. In the present case, the allegations relate to
illegal storage and sale of liquor. The petitioner is
already facing prosecution in the pending criminal
cases. The criminal law is set in motion and the
petitioner is subject to trial before the competent
Court.
12. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.
No.871/2023 has held that mere registration or
pendency of criminal cases cannot be the sole basis to
invoke the drastic power of externment unless the
order reflects application of mind and records specific
reasons indicating threat to public peace and order.
13. In the present case, though a show cause notice
under Section 58 of the Act was issued and an
opportunity of hearing was afforded, the impugned
order does not disclose any independent application of
mind nor does it assign cogent reasons to justify
externment of the petitioner from the district. Mere
registration of pendency of criminal cases cannot be
the sole basis for externment. The authority must show
material indicating that the public at large are afraid to
depose against a person. This Court cannot ignore the
fact that externment is a drastic measure and
therefore, the order must be preceded by specific
reasons demonstrating the requisite ingredients of
Section 55 of the Act.
14. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order suffers from non-application of mind
and absence of reasons, and is liable to be interfered
with.
15. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
(ii) The externment order dated 24.12.2025 passed
respondent No.2 in proceedings No.
M.A.G(GA)CR/23/2025, evidenced at Annexure-A, is
hereby quashed.
(iii) It is however open to the respondents to take
appropriate action in accordance with law, if
circumstances so warrant in future.”
6. In the instant case, the reasons assigned by the
respondents for the purpose of directing externment of the
petitioner are as under:
“PÁgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ:-
7) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À ªÁzÀª£ À ÀÄß D°¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À
ºÉýPÉ, ºÁUÀÆ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀg¢ À , ºÉýPÉU¼ À À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV F PɼV À £À
CA±ÀU¼ À ÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀz Û .É
EzÀg° À A
è iÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ PÀ®§ÄgÀV £ÀUg À z
À °
À è PÉƯÉ, PÉÆ¯É ¥ÀA
æ iÀÄvÀß,
¸ÀÄ°UÀ,É DPÀª æ ÀÄ PÀÆl gÀa¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÉÆA¢UÀÉ dUÀ¼À vÉUz ÉÀ ÄÀ
ªÀiÁgÁPÀ¸U ÀÛ ½
À AzÀ ºÀ®èÉ £Àq¸ É ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ £ÉªÄÀ ä¢UÀÉ
PÀAlPÀ¥ÁæAiÀĪÁVzÀÄÝ, ¤ªÀÄä zÀĵÀÌøvÀåUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀÄÄUÀÝ d£ÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥À¨ æ sÁªÀ
©Ãj ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå d£ÀgÀ ±ÁAw ¨sA À UÀª£À ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÀºÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀ
ZÀlĪÀnPÉAiÀÄ°è vÉÆqÀV ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ £ÉªÀÄä¢UÀÉ PÀAlPÀ¥ÁæAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀAvÀºÀ
JA§ D¥ÁzÀ£A É iÀÄÄ ¥Àj²Ã®£É¬ÄAzÀ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÀÌÉ ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀÄvÀz Û .ÉD¥Á¢üv£
À £
À ÀÄß UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¤tð¬Ä¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀ CA±ÀU¼
À ÀÄ F PɼV
À £À
PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀª
Û .É
8) ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉAiÀÄ µÀgv
À ÀÄU
Û ¼
À À£ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÀPÁÌV zÀAqÀ ¨sj
À ¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀz
Û .ÉZËPÀ oÁtÉAiÀÄ ¦.J.Dgï. £ÀA.32/2025 PÀ®A:126 ©.J£ï.J¸ï
CrAiÀÄ°è MAzÀÄ ªÀµð À zÀ CªÀ¢A ü iÀÄ°è AiÀiÁ«zÉà PÁ£ÀÄ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀ
ZÀlĪÀnPÉAiÀÄ°è vÉÆqÀUÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè CAvÁ µÀgv À ÀÄÛ §zÀÝ ªÀÄÄZÀ½PÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ
DzÀgÃÉ ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÝ ZËPÀ ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉ UÀÄ£Éß £ÀA.224/2025 PÀ®A 115(2),
109(1), 352, 351(2) ©,J£ï,J¸ï ¥ÀPæ g
À tÀ zÀ zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀz Û .É
¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.05.2026 gÀAzÀÄ 25,000/- gÀÆ zÀAqÀª£ À ÀÄß ¨sj
À ¹zÀÄÝ
EgÀÄvÀz
Û .É
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
9) gËr ²ÃlgÀzÁgÀgÁVgÀÄwÛÃj.
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÉÆð¸ï DAiÀÄÄPÀg
Û ÀÄ £ÁxÀð G¥À «¨sÁUÀ PÀ®§ÄgÀV £ÀUg À À gÀªgÀ ÄÀ
DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå 14/gËr²Ãmï/J¸Àr¦M/©/PÀ/2014 ¢£ÁAPÀ 24/4/2014 gÀAzÀÄ
ZËPÀ ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è “J” gËr²Ãmï vÉgA É iÀįÁVgÀÄvÀz
Û .É ¥À¸
æ ÄÀ v
Û À CzÀÄ
ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀz
Û .É
10) CP˻
æ ÀÄ PÀÆlªÀ£ÀÄß gÀa¹PÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃj.
04 jAzÀ 05 d£ÀgÀ PÀæªÀÄ PÀÆlªÀ£ÀÄß gÀa¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ ±ÁAw
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉªÀÄä¢UÉ ¨sA
À UÀ vÀgÀĪÀ ZÀlĪÀnPÉAiÀÄ°è vÉÆqÀVPÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃj.
11) ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ DAiÀÄÄzsÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄ°UÀÉ AiÀÄAvÀºÀ ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À zÀ°è ¥Àª
æ ÄÀ ÄR
DgÉÆæ£ÁVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀz Û .É
12) ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ CzsÁåAiÀÄ VIII,XVI,XVII ªÀÄvÀÄÛ XXII
gÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ ¸ÀA»vÀ CzsÁåAiÀÄ VI, XIX CrAiÀÄ°è
zÀAqÀ¤AiÀĪÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ªÉ¸ÀUÀĪÀ ¥Àª
æ ÀÈwÛªÀżÀ
À ÁVgÀÄvÁÛ£.É
13) PÀ®§ÄgÀV £ÀUg À z
À À ¥Éǰøï DAiÀÄÄPÁæ®AiÀÄ ªÁå¦Û¬ÄAzÀ UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ
ªÀiÁqÀzÃÉ ºÉÆÃzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀºZ À gÀ Æ
É A¢UÀÉ PÀÆr
PÉÆAqÀÄ, ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ ±ÁAw ¨sA À UÀª£
À ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ C®èzÉ ¸ÀªiÀ ÁdzÀ
¸ÀéxÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁr PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀåªÀ¸ÉÜUÀÉ zsPÀ ÌÀ É ªÀiÁqÀ§®è
C¥ÁAiÀÄPÁj ªÀåQÛAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÃÛ j.
JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀ ZÀlĪÀnPÉU¼ À £
À ÀÄß PÀrªÁt ºÁPÀ®Ä,
PÁ£ÀƤ£À §UÉÎ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ UËgÀªÀ ºÉÆAzÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀÄ£ÀªÀjPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ®Ä,
¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ°£ è À DgÉÆÃUÀåPÀgÀ ªÁvÁªÀgt À ªÀ£ÀÄß PÁAiÀÄÄÝPÉƼÀî®Ä, ¸ÀªiÀ Ád ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ »vÀzÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ JzÀgÀÄUÁgÀ£ÀÄß UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÀª æ ÄÀ
PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¤ªÁAiÀÄðªÁzÀzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¥ÀlÄÖ
JzÀgÀÄzÁgÀ££ À ÀÄß PÀ®§ÄgÀV £ÀUgÀ À ¥Éǰøï DAiÀÄÄPÁÛ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÁå¦Û¬ÄAzÀ
zÀÆgÀzÀ f®èU É ÀÉ MAzÀÄ UÀt¤ÃAiÀÄ ¥Àª æ ÀiÁtzÀ CªÀ¢U ü ÉÀ UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ
¸ÀÆPÀªÛ ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ F PɼV À £ÀAvÉ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. CfðzÁgÀgÀ
CfðAiÀÄ ªÉÄð£À J®è «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAUÀwUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄïÉ
¥ÀÅgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À®Ä AiÉÆÃUÀåªÁVzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÁgÁvÀäªÁVzÉ DzÀÝjAzÀ F PɼV À £ÀAvÉ
DzÉò¹zÉ.”
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026
HC-KAR
7. As can be seen from the aforesaid reasons
assigned by the respondents, except stating that criminal
cases are pending against the petitioner, there
are absolutely no other reasons, much less valid or
sufficient reasons/grounds to direct externment of the
petitioner and in the absence of legal or acceptable
reasons for directing externment of the petitioner, mere
pendency of criminal cases against him simplicitor by itself
could not have been made the basis nor relied upon by the
respondents to pass the impugned externment order
which deserves to be set aside by imposing certain
conditions upon the petitioner.
8. Under these circumstances, merely because a
complaint was registered against the petitioner, which is
pending investigation, the said case could not have been
made the basis to pass the impugned order, which
deserves to be quashed on this ground also.
9. In the result, the following:
– 28 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:4740
WP No. 202450 of 2026HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 20.05.2026
passed by the 2nd respondent – Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Kalaburagi vide
Annexure-C is hereby quashed, subject to
the petitioner not indulging in any illegal
activities under any circumstances
whatsoever.
(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the
respondents to proceed against the
petitioner in the future in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
SV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
