- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1033 WP No. 100559 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.100559 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: IMRAN HUSENSAB @ JAMEELSAB @ JAMEEL AHMED, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. MEDICAL REPRESENTATIVE, R/O. NEAR YASINSAB MASJID, COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI-583101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.M. JAVED, ADVOCATE AND SRI. ANWAR BASHA T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, BALLARI-583101. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583101. 4. POLICE INSPECTOR, COWL BAZAAR P.S., BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THE WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO./KAM/MAG/GADIPARU/43/2025-26, DATED 02.01.2026 (ANNEXURE-C) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1033 WP No. 100559 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: “ i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 02.01.2026 bearing No/Sam/Kam/M.A.G/43/Gadiparu/2025-26 passed by 2nd respondent vide Annexure-C in the interest of justice and equity. ii) Issue such other writ or give such other direction and pass such other order as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the cases.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 had issued notice dated 28.10.2025 to the petitioner mentioning that many cases are pending against him and an order of externment as per Section 55(a) of the Karnataka Police Act, 19631 could be passed and asked him to reply for the same. The petitioner appeared before the Authority and filed a detailed objection on 16.12.2025 stating that notice is not maintainable, since as per Section 56 of the KP Act, the petitioner is not 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘KP Act’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1033 WP No. 100559 of 2026 convicted of any offence. It is further case of the petitioner that without considering the same, the impugned order dated 02.01.2026 is passed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 has not applied his mind before passing the impugned order dated 02.01.2026 and has not considered the statement of objections filed by the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order is without following the due process of law. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has deliberately violated the rights of the petitioner enshrined in the Constitution of India and without considering all these aspects, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 02.01.2026. 4. When the learned AGA has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition in the light of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 59 of the KP Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the citizens’ fundamental rights are violated and the police without even considering the objection that are raised on behalf of the petitioner, has passed an order, the petitioner can approach this Court notwithstanding the fact that there is an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1033 WP No. 100559 of 2026 appeal under Section 59 of the KP Act. It is further submitted that as per Section 55(b) and 56 of the KP Act, no offences are registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Chapters No.XII, XIV or XVI of the IPC. As such, as no offences are pending against the petitioner under these Chapters, respondent No.2 ought not to have passed the impugned order. It is submitted that as the order impugned is passed contrary to the provision of Section 55 of the KP Act, the petitioner has come before this Court. 5. Learned AGA representing the respondents submits that the petitioner was behaving in an unruly manner and disturbing the peace and tranquility in the locality and based on the report, the impugned order is passed. It is submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by this order, there is a remedy of appeal under Section 59 of the KP Act and the petitioner is not able to say how it is not an efficacious remedy under Section 59 of the KP Act, to go before the government. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. According to the petitioner, there are no offences punishable under Chapters XII, XIV or XVII of the IPC against the petitioner and the order that is passed by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1033 WP No. 100559 of 2026 respondent No.2 is bad. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. According to the petitioner, there are no offences punishable under Chapters XII, XIV or XVII of the IPC against the petitioner and the order that is passed by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1033 WP No. 100559 of 2026 respondent No.2 is bad. Before considering the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is appropriate to look at Sections 55, 56 and also 59 of the KP Act, which reads thus: ““55.Removal of persons about to commit offences.— Whenever it shall appear in the City of Bangalore and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner, and in other area or areas to which the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, extend the provision of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction and specially empowered by the Government in that behalf,— (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, or (c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him, or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of such disease or to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof contiguous thereto by such route and within such time as the said officer may specify and not to enter, or return to the said place from which he was directed to remove himself. 56. Removal of persons convicted of certain offences.—If a person has been convicted at any time either before or after the commencement of this Act,— (a) of an offence under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860); or (b) of an offence under section - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1033 WP No. 100559 of 2026 6 of 13 of the Mysore Mines Act, 1906 (Mysore Act 4 of 1906); or (c) of an offence under section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act 5 of 1964); or (d) twice of an offence under section 19 of the Mysore Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1944 (Mysore Act 33 of 1944) or any other corresponding law in force in any area of the State; or (e) twice of an offence under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956); or (f) twice of an offence under the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (Central Act 22 of 1955); or (g) thrice of an offence within a period of three years under section 78, 79 or 80 of this Act; or (h) thrice of an offence within a period of three years under sections 32, 34, 37 or 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act 1965, (Karnataka Act 21 of 1966), the Commissioner, the District Magistrate, or any Sub-divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the Government in this behalf, if he has reason to believe that such person is likely again to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was convicted, may direct such person to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area or any district or districts or any part thereof contiguous thereto, by such route and within such time as the said officer may specify and not to enter or return to the place from which he was directed to remove himself. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section “an offence similar to that for which a person was convicted” shall mean,— (i) in the case of a person convicted of an offence mentioned in clause (a), an offence falling under any of the Chapters of the Indian Penal Code mentioned in that clause; and (ii) in the case of person convicted of an offence mentioned in clauses (e) and (f), an offence falling under the provisions of the Acts mentioned respectively in the said clauses. 59. Appeal.—Any person aggrieved by an order made under section 54, 55 or 56 may appeal to the Government within thirty days from the date of such order.” 7. On bare perusal of Section 55 of the KP Act, it does not refer to any of the crimes and it only says that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1033 WP No. 100559 of 2026 cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, an order can be passed. According to the petitioner, this order is passed under Section 55(a) of the KP Act. If an order is passed under Section 55(a) of the KP Act, then a right of appeal lies to the Government under Section 59 of the KP Act. In the entire petition, the petitioner has not stated as to why the petition is filed inspite of alternative remedy available under Section 59 of the KP Act. In the considered opinion of this Court, this is not the case where this Court has to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when there is an alternative remedy available. No exceptional circumstances are pleaded, which warrants interference of this Court under 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy under Section 59 of the KP Act. ii) All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1033 WP No. 100559 of 2026 iii) Registry is directed to return all the certified copies produced in this writ petition to the petitioner. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI JTR CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 108