- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30560 WP No. 23391 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23391 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI. DIVAKARA S/O MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT DODDI HALLI VILLAGE, BIKKODU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHISHA D J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573201 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT POLICE HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573201 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30560 WP No. 23391 of 2025 4. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE AREHALLI POLICE STATION, HALEBEEDU CIRCLE, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT POLICE ARASIKERE SUB-DIVISION HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNX-H 2025 IN MAG NO. 683/2024-25 PASSED BY THE R-2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's order under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 [for short, 'the Police Act']. The second respondent has directed the petitioner's externment from Hassan District for the period - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30560 WP No. 23391 of 2025 between 11.07.2025 and 11.01.2026. Mr. Sathisha D.J., the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. K. P. Yashodha, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition. 2. Mr. Sathisha D.J. submits that the petitioner is issued with Show Cause Notice of the proceedings under Section 55 of the Police Act, but without a Report from the Jurisdictional Police on the reasons for externment order. On the petitioner's case that there is denial of due opportunity, which is inherent in the provisions of Section 58 of the Police Act, the learned counsel submits that: [a] a learned Member of the Bar appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the second respondent on 05.04.2025; [b] the proceedings were adjourned to be called on 30.05.2025 and next on 17.06.2025 only - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30560 WP No. 23391 of 2025 because of the difficulties for the second respondent; [c] on 04.07.2025, the second respondent has reserved the matter for the impugned order. 3. Mr. Sathisha D.J. further emphasizes that the petitioner, as is provided under the provisions of Section 58 of the Police Act, must be informed in writing the material allegations and the reason for the proposed externment. The petitioner is not issued with the details of the proceedings, which becomes the basis for the impugned order. The learned counsel, when queried, is categorical that the Show Cause Notice did not mention the proceedings which form the basis. 4. Mrs. K. P. Yashodha is not able to controvert the assertion that though the proceedings were listed on 05.04.2025, 03.06.2025 and 17.06.2025, there was no effective hearing. This must - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30560 WP No. 23391 of 2025 be the first reason for interference. This Court must also observe that if indeed the petitioner is acquitted of six cases that are referred to in the impugned order and the two of the next four cases refer to only the offences under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, there must be due consideration of these circumstances as well. Crucially, the petitioner should have been called upon to answer the proposal for externment in the light of these materials, and this becomes indisputable in view of the provisions of Section 58 [1] of the Police Act which reads as: 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30560 WP No. 23391 of 2025 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. The underlining is by this Court In the light of the afore, this Court finds it just to interfere with the impugned order, but to restore the proceedings to the second respondent for due consideration. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed in part, and the second respondent's impugned order dated 11.07.2025 [Annexure - H] is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30560 WP No. 23391 of 2025 quashed and the proceedings are restored to the second respondent for due consideration. The petitioner, without further notice, shall appear before the second respondent on 11.08.2025 and any further date that may be indicated by the second respondent. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB