- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1035 WP No. 100509 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.100509 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI. D MALLIKARJUN S/O. D. MALLAPPA, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. WARD NO.5, NEAR SRI. VASAGERI TEMPLE, KUDITINI, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583101. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA S.VAKKUND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, BALLARI, D.C. COMPOUND, STATION ROAD, BALLARI-583101. 3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, KUDATINI POLICE STATION, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2026 BEARING NO/SAM/KAM/M.A.G/48/GADIPARU/2025-26 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 2. 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. Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1035 WP No. 100509 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/48/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. The petitioner is the accused for having committed the offences punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 19631 and several cases are registered against him for the same offences. Hence, respondent No.3 has made recommendation for externment order against the petitioner. Based on the said recommendation, respondent No.2 has issued a notice dated 28.10.2025 to the petitioner directing him to appear before the authority on 11.11.2025. Pursuant to the said 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘KP Act’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1035 WP No. 100509 of 2026 notice, the petitioner appeared before the Authority and filed objections. The respondent No.2 on 2.1.2026 had passed an order of externment and the respondent No.2 has reasoned to believe that the petitioner is involved in gambling of cases and on the basis of the information collected by the Police Officer, it is found that the petitioner has continued with the matka gambling and all the acts of the petitioner are detrimental to the public order and also there is a possibility that the petitioner will disturb the public peace. It is stated that on the report of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 passed an order of externing the petitioner from the limits of Ballari to Raibag police station, Belagavi for a period of three months i.e., from 02.01.2026 to 01.04.2026. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that apprehension of the police itself is not enough for passing the order of externment. The respondents have not produced necessary documents while issuing notice. It is stated that total 8 cases were registered against the petitioner, but the offence is punishable under Section 78(3) of the KP Act and out of that 8 cases, 6 cases are closed and only 2 cases were were pending. In 6 cases, the petitioner has paid the fine amount and all those - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1035 WP No. 100509 of 2026 offences are non cognizable offences. It is submitted that the externment order is without any basis and contrary to the provisions of the KP Act. 4. Learned AGA representing the respondents submits that the respondent No.2 giving reasons has passed an order of externment stating that the petitioner is involved in the activity of gambling and continued to do so, which is disturbing the peace and tranquility of the place. He submits that the apprehension is sufficient and if the impugned order that is passed is bad, he could have filed an appeal under Section 59 of the KP Act. It is further submitted that the order that is impugned in this case is a well reasoned order. 5. 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 respondent No.2 is bad in law. 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 read thus: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1035 WP No. 100509 of 2026 “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. 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1035 WP No. 100509 of 2026 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.” 6. Section 54 of the KP Act deals with dispersal of gangs and removal of persons convicted of certain offences, Section 55 of the KP Act deals with removal of persons about to commit offences, Section 56 of the KP Act deals with removal of persons convicted of certain offences, wherein the offences are enumerated and Section 59 of the KP Act provides a right of appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1035 WP No. 100509 of 2026 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 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 writ petition, the petitioner has not stated as to why the petition is filed inspite of an 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 a 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1035 WP No. 100509 of 2026 ORDER a. The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy under Section 59 of the KP Act. b. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. c. 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.: 98