- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13545 WP No. 7459 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7459 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. MR BHUVI @ BHUVITH SHETTY S/O SANJEEVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT KADU MANE PALLAMAJALU, B. MUDA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT- 574211. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEEPAK SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575001. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BANTWAL SUB DIVISION, BANTWAL MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST-574211. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13545 WP No. 7459 of 2026 4. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE BANTWAL TOWN POLICE STATION BANTWAL, B C ROAD, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST-574211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL ORDER BEARING NO. M.A.G.S.R/27/2025 DATED 27.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE -A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the externment order bearing No.M.A.G.S.R/27/2025 dated 27.11.2025 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure -A. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds has vehemently argued and contended that the impugned order vide Annexure-A is not preceded by a proper enquiry provided under Section 57 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short 'KP Act, 1963') and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13545 WP No. 7459 of 2026 also contrary to Section 58 of the 'KP Act, 1963', which mandates that the person sought to be externed has to be heard and reasonable opportunity should be given. 3. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Sections 57 and 58 of the 'KP Act, 1963', the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the impugned externment order suffers from serious legal infirmities. By referring to the statutory scheme governing externment under the said provisions, learned counsel would submit that the mandatory requirements contemplated under the 'KP Act, 1963' have not been adhered to while passing the impugned order. In support of the said contention, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.392/2023, wherein this Court has elaborately dealt with the scope and requirements of Sections 57 and 58 of the 'KP Act, 1963' while examining the legality of externment orders. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13545 WP No. 7459 of 2026 4. Relying on the principles laid down in the said judgment, it is contended that the impugned externment order is not only contrary to the statutory mandate contained under the aforesaid provisions but is also inconsistent with the law declared by this Court in the judgment cited supra. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction and quash the impugned order. 5. Per-contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, by referring to the records, would submit that the impugned externment order has already been given effect to and implemented by the authorities. He would point out that pursuant to the externment order, the petitioner has already been externed from the notified local area in terms of the order passed by the competent authority. Therefore, it is contended that once the order has been implemented, the petitioner cannot bypass the statutory remedy available under the 'KP Act, 1963' and directly invoke - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13545 WP No. 7459 of 2026 the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned AGA, the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before the competent Appellate Authority under the provisions of the 'KP Act, 1963' and therefore the petitioner ought to avail the said remedy and seek redressal of his grievances before the appellate forum. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon careful perusal of the material placed on record, this Court has examined the impugned externment order as well as the records produced by the respondents. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner has been externed by an order bearing No.M.A.G.S.R/27/2025 dated 27.11.2025, whereby the petitioner was directed to be externed from the specified local limits with effect from 28.11.2025. It is not in dispute that the said order has already been implemented and the petitioner has been subjected to externment in terms of the order passed by the competent authority. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13545 WP No. 7459 of 2026 7. In view of the fact that the externment order has already been acted upon and implemented, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner would be required to avail the statutory remedy available under the 'KP Act, 1963' by filing an appeal before the competent Appellate Authority challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned order on merits. Since the statute itself provides for an appellate remedy, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to pursue the said remedy and seek adjudication of his grievances before the appellate forum. Accordingly, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal against the impugned externment order, the captioned writ petition stands disposed of. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority shall consider and dispose of the same expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law, bearing - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13545 WP No. 7459 of 2026 in mind the principles laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment cited supra. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33