- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953 WP No. 103765 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103765 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: RASULKHAN @ KHALARASUL S/O. NAZIRAHMED BAGALKOT, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER, R/O. KULKARNI HAKKAL, GOODSHED ROAD, HUBBALLI, TALUKA: HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D. L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (L & O) AND SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD, NAVANAGARA, HUBBALLI-580025, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR-584101. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SOUTH SUB DIVISION, HUBBALLI-580020. 5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, TOWN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI-580020, DIST: DHARWAD. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DEODURGA POLICE STATION, DEODURGA-584111, DIST: RAICHUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. MAGADUM, AGA) VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953 WP No. 103765 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR ANY DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE IN NO.CHP/VIKADA/COP/HU- DHA/GADIPARU/37/2025 DATED 20-05-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents-State. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner against an order of externment passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-A. 3. It is the contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, respondent No.2 passed an order of externment on the ground that there are several criminal cases registered against the petitioner and the petitioner is involved in several offences. The police have kept a watch over him and his activities and having collected all necessary - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953 WP No. 103765 of 2025 information and coming to the conclusion that there is apprehension that the petitioner may engage in antisocial activities, in order to maintain peace and tranquility and to restrain the petitioner from committing any further illegal activity, order of externment is passed by respondent No.2. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of externment passed by respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed on the sole ground that no notice was served on the petitioner so also no opportunity was given to the petitioner to engage a counsel, defend his case, adduce evidence, examine witnesses in support of his case against the allegations or externment so sought to be made by respondent No.2. Learned counsel further contends that Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short), has not been followed in its true letter and spirit and thereby there is clear violation of the procedure contemplated under the Act. It is also - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953 WP No. 103765 of 2025 contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has contradicted himself, as the petitioner was acquitted in two out of 4 cases and only two cases are pending. Therefore, on these grounds, he contends that the procedure as contemplated under the Act is not followed and no opportunity was given. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is an auto rickshaw driver and has a family and he is maintaining his family from out of the amount earned by driving auto rickshaw. Therefore, the petitioner would be put to severe hardship and inconvenience due to externment order passed by respondent No.2. On these grounds, he seeks to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent. 6. Per contra, learned AGA Sri. Sharad V. Magadum sustains the impugned order and contends that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not be correct, as notice is issued in advance to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and since he has not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953 WP No. 103765 of 2025 given any reply and not adduced any evidence, respondent No.2 has proceeded further to pass orders. Therefore, the procedure as contemplated is followed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondents-State. 8. The procedure contemplated under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, is as under: “58. Hearing to be given before an order is passed under section 54, 55 or 56.—(1) Before an order under sections 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953 WP No. 103765 of 2025 proposed to be made under sections 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.” 9. On a careful reading of this provision, it is apparently clear that, before passing any order under the provisions of Sections 54, 55, 56 and 57 of the Act, it is necessary that the authorized officer shall inform the person in writing the general nature of material allegations against him providing reasonable opportunity of tendering explanation and if such application for examination of witnesses is so made, the same shall be considered unless for the 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. So also the provisions contemplates that the petitioner shall be entitled to appear before the Officer by engaging a legal practitioner to tender his explanation and examine witnesses, if he so desires. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953 WP No. 103765 of 2025 10. In the present case, opportunity was not granted, on the very same day order is passed, thereby denying the basic rights of the petitioner. As contemplated under the provisions of Section 58 of the Act, principles of natural justice require to be followed either way. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chandrakanth Shankar Vaddar Vs. State Of Karnataka And Others1, which has relied upon the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench in the case of Madhusudhan v. State of Karnataka2. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is procedural lapse while passing the impugned order. Under the circumstances, this petition will have to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER 1 Writ Petition No.102870/2024, DD on 25.06.2024 2 AIR ONLINE 2023 KAR 168 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953 WP No. 103765 of 2025 i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 20.05.2025 bearing No. CHP/VIKADA/COP/HU-DHA/GADIPARU/37/2025 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A is quashed. iii. Respondent No.1 is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings by following the mandatory provisions prescribed under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, in accordance with law. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26