- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26270-DB WA No. 1453 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO.1453 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI MAHESH SHETTY THIMARODI S/O LATE VITTAL SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT THIMARODI HOUSE, UJIRE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 240. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BALAKRISHNA M.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CUM SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PUTTUR SUB-DIVISION, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 201. Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26270-DB WA No. 1453 of 2026 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BANTWAL SUB-DIVISION, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 211. 4. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, BELTHANGADY POLICE STATION, BELTHANGADY, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 214. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI B.N. JAGADISH, ADDL. PP) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2026 IN W.P.NO.9324/2026 (GM-POLICE) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND GRANT THE RELIEFS SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANT IN W.P.NO.9324/2026 (GM-POLICE) THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA) 1. The appeal arises from the order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.9324/2026 [GM-Police] - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26270-DB WA No. 1453 of 2026 declining to entertain the challenge to an order of externment and relegating the appellant to the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 59 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 ['the Act']. 2. The principal contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that this court had already in W.P. No.30021/2025 (GM-Police), entertained a challenge to the externment proceedings on merits, notwithstanding the availability of the statutory appeal. Thus, the learned Single Judge ought not to have disposed of W.P. No.9324/2026, merely on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under Section 59 of the Act. It is contended that the very same exceptional circumstances which warranted interference in the earlier round of litigation continue to persist. 3. In support of the said contention, he relies upon the following decisions: (i) Ved Prakash @ Vedu Vs. Lt. Governor, NCT & others1 (ii) Narayan Sitaram Pawar and Another Vs. Superintendent of Police and others2 1 ILR 2005 I Delhi 814 2 2023 SCC Online Bom 1391 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26270-DB WA No. 1453 of 2026 to contend that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. It is contended that the case falls within the well-recognised exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, inasmuch as the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error, violation of the principles of natural justice, absence of relevant material and infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the first and the second externment orders (dated 18.09.2025 and 16.12.2025 respectively) were set aside by this Court and despite repeated opportunities and remand orders, the authority has persisted in passing substantially similar orders. Therefore, relegating the appellant once again to the statutory appellate remedy would amount to an empty and futile exercise. 5. It is contended that the use of the expression 'may' in Section 59 of the Act indicates that the appellate remedy is permissive and not mandatory and, therefore, does not oust or curtail the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226. It is submitted that a substantial number of cases relied upon by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26270-DB WA No. 1453 of 2026 authorities have culminated in acquittal, some are several years old, some have resulted only in the imposition of nominal fines, while others are still under investigation. There is no material to indicate that the appellant's continued presence poses a threat to public order so as to warrant an order of externment. 6. The Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State, drew the attention of this Court to the details of the criminal cases registered against the appellant and the material considered by the externing authority. He also referred to the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or procedural irregularity or violation of any principles of natural justice or procedural irregularity warranting interference by this Court. 7. It is stated that, pursuant to the remand orders passed by this Court, the Competent Authority has scrupulously complied with the statutory requirements and thereafter passed a reasoned order based on the material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26270-DB WA No. 1453 of 2026 8. The law is well settled that the mere availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ Court may nevertheless entertain a writ petition in certain cases involving jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice, infringement of fundamental rights or where the impugned order is demonstrably arbitrary or without authority of law. 9. In the present case, however, the material on record discloses the existence of prima facie material before the externing authority. Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the appellant on the use of the expression 'may' occurring in Section 59 of the Act, to contend that the appellate remedy provided therein is merely permissive and not mandatory, and therefore, the existence of such a remedy cannot be held to deprive the appellant of the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submissions. The question is not whether the appellant is mandatorily required to file an appeal, but whether an efficacious statutory remedy is available under the Act. The existence of such remedy is a relevant consideration governing the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26270-DB WA No. 1453 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution. While the availability of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the writ Court, it is equally well settled that in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the writ Court would ordinarily decline to entertain the petition and relegate the aggrieved party to the statutory remedy. The use of the expression 'may' in Section 59 merely confers a choice upon an aggrieved person either to avail or not to avail the appellate remedy. 11. As regards to the decisions relied upon by the appellant, there can be no dispute with the principles laid down therein. However, the applicability of those principles necessarily depends upon the facts of each case. 12. In the present facts, we are unable to discern the existence of such exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing the statutory appellate remedy under Section 59 of the Act. The said decisions are therefore distinguishable on facts and do not advance the case of the appellant. 13. The learned Single Judge, upon appreciation of the material on record, has found that, pursuant to the earlier remand orders, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26270-DB WA No. 1453 of 2026 the Assistant Commissioner has complied with the statutory requirements by issuing a notice, affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, considering the objections submitted by him and thereafter passing a reasoned order. The learned Single Judge further held that the impugned externment order has not been shown to be perverse, arbitrary, without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice. 14. Having regard to the availability of efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 59 of the Act, the learned Single Judge declined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction and relegated the appellant to avail the appellate remedy, while keeping all the contentions open for consideration by the appellate authority. 15. In view of the above and upon consideration of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which forms the subject matter of challenge, we find no case made out demonstrating any patent illegality, jurisdictional infirmity or perversity warranting interference in exercise of our intra-Court appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26270-DB WA No. 1453 of 2026 16. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 17. Pending applications shall also stand dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE MBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2