- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528 WP No. 103807 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103807 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: KARTIK S/O. YALLAPPA LESAPPANAVAR, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: GOUNDI WORKS, AT DASARA ONI, BAIRIDEVARAKOPPA, HUBBALLI-580031. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN C. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE COURT, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580025. 3. POLICE INSPECTOR, A.P.M.C. NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580025. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BANAVARA POLICE STATION, BANAVARA, DISTRICT: HASSAN-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/05/2025, ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER (LAW AND VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.14 12:37:17 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528 WP No. 103807 of 2025 ORDER) AND HON’BLE SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE COURT, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD IN BEARING CASE NO.KRA.SI.H.P./V KAADA/ COP/HU-DHA/GADIPARU/29/2025, PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 55 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963, THE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PRODUCED HERE WITH ANNEXURE-B, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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 respondent No.2 at Annexure-B. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, respondent No.2 passed an order of externment on the ground that the petitioner is involved in several cases detrimental to public order, the police have kept a watch over him and his activities and having collected all necessary information and have come to the conclusion that there is apprehension that the petitioner may engage in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528 WP No. 103807 of 2025 anti social activities, and 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 and 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 (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 further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528 WP No. 103807 of 2025 respondent No.2 has contradicted himself, as 2 cases are pending against the petitioner and he is involved in several offences. It is contended that the petitioner is a goundi labour and is maintaining his family from out of the amount earned by the labour work. 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. 5. 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. On 20.05.2025, the matter was taken up. The petitioner appeared and since he has not given any reply and not adduced any evidence, respondent No.2 proceeded further to pass orders. Therefore, the procedure as contemplated in the Act is followed. On these grounds, he seeks for dismissal of the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528 WP No. 103807 of 2025 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondent-State. 7. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528 WP No. 103807 of 2025 attendance of any person against whom any order is 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.” 8. On a careful reading of this provision, it is apparently clear that, before passing any order under the provisions of Sections 54, 55 or 56 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. 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:8528 WP No. 103807 of 2025 9. In the present case, opportunity was not granted. On the very same day, impugned order is passed thereby denying the basic opportunity and rights of the petitioner as contemplated under the provisions of Section 58 of the Act and principles of natural justice requires to be followed either way. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chandrakanth Shankar Vaddar V State Of Karnataka And Others1 which has relied upon another Co-ordinate Bench’s judgment 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 deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. 1 Writ Petition No.102870/2024, DD on 25.06.2024 2 AIR ONLINE 2023 KAR 168 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528 WP No. 103807 of 2025 ii. The impugned order dated 20.05.2025 bearing No.¹JZï¦/«PÁzÀ/¹N¦/ºÀÄ-zsÁ/UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ/29/2025 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B 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, in accordance with law. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75