- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16054 WP No. 7930 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7930 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI RACHAPPA S/O KEMAPALINGANAYAKA. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT URA BASAPPANA ODDU, MALE MAHADESWARA BETTA VILLAGE, HANURU TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571490. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERABHADRA SWAMY H P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, AND DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571440, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16054 WP No. 7930 of 2026 3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2025 IN NO.M.A.G (GA)CR/23/2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A. II) PASS ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COST, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the externment order dated 24.12.2025 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") whereby the petitioner has been externed from Chamarajanagar District to Kalaburagi District for a period of six months. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16054 WP No. 7930 of 2026 2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that respondent No.3 submitted a report alleging that the petitioner had constructed a house illegally within the jurisdiction of Shri Malemahadeshwara Swamy Kshetra Development Authority and was illegally storing liquor in the said house and selling the same to the public at hiked prices. It was also alleged that the petitioner was using local youth to assist him in the illegal sale of liquor. Based on the said report, a criminal case came to be registered against the petitioner. It is further alleged that there are three other criminal cases pending against the petitioner. 3. On the basis of the said report, respondent No.2 initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 55 of the Act in proceedings bearing No. M.A.G(GA)CR/23/2025. A show cause notice under Section 58 of the Act was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order directing externment of the petitioner from - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16054 WP No. 7930 of 2026 Chamarajanagar District to Kalaburagi District for a period of six months. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. He would submit that the order is passed solely on the ground that three criminal cases are pending against the petitioner under the provisions of the Excise Act, 1965. Mere pendency of criminal cases, without there being any material demonstrating that the petitioner’s activities are prejudicial to public order or public safety, cannot constitute a ground for invoking the drastic power of externment. He would further contend that the impugned order does not assign cogent reasons and therefore the order is not a speaking order. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.871/2023 DD.2.3.2023. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16054 WP No. 7930 of 2026 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner is involved in illegal sale of liquor and that his activities were creating nuisance and disturbance in the locality. It is contended that after issuing notice under Section 58 of the Act and after affording an opportunity of hearing, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order and therefore the same does not warrant interference. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. The power of externment conferred under Section 55 of the Act is an extraordinary measure which directly affects the fundamental right of a citizen to reside and move freely. Such power has to be exercised sparingly and strictly in accordance with the statutory requirements. 8. A careful perusal of the impugned order indicates that respondent No.2 has primarily relied upon the fact that three criminal cases are pending against the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16054 WP No. 7930 of 2026 petitioner under the provisions of the Excise Act, 1965. Except referring to the pendency of the said cases and the report submitted by respondent No.3, the order does not disclose any material to demonstrate that the presence of the petitioner in the district is hazardous to public order or that witnesses are unwilling to come forward to depose against him due to fear. 9. Mere allegations that the petitioner is illegally storing or selling liquor would not, by themselves, attract the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 55 of the Act. The power of externment under Section 55 of the Act is an extraordinary preventive measure and can be invoked only when the competent authority is satisfied that the movements or acts of a person are causing alarm, danger, or harm to persons or property, and that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against such person by reason of apprehension for their safety. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16054 WP No. 7930 of 2026 10. Externment proceedings cannot be resorted to as a substitute for ordinary criminal prosecution. If the allegation is that the petitioner is involved in illegal sale of liquor, the appropriate course for the authorities is to proceed against him under the relevant provisions of the Excise law. Preventive action under Section 55 of the Act cannot be invoked merely on the basis of such allegations unless there is cogent material showing that the activities of the person pose a threat to public peace and safety. 11. It is well settled that mere pendency of criminal cases cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for passing an order of externment. The authority exercising powers under Section 55 of the Act is required to record a subjective satisfaction, based on tangible material, that the movements or acts of the person are causing alarm, danger or harm to persons or property and that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public due to apprehension. The impugned order is conspicuously silent on these aspects. In the present case, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16054 WP No. 7930 of 2026 allegations relate to illegal storage and sale of liquor. The petitioner is already facing prosecution in the pending criminal cases. The criminal law is set in motion and the petitioner is subject to trial before the competent Court. 12. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.871/2023 has held that mere registration or pendency of criminal cases cannot be the sole basis to invoke the drastic power of externment unless the order reflects application of mind and records specific reasons indicating threat to public peace and order. 13. In the present case, though a show cause notice under Section 58 of the Act was issued and an opportunity of hearing was afforded, the impugned order does not disclose any independent application of mind nor does it assign cogent reasons to justify externment of the petitioner from the district. Mere registration of pendency of criminal cases cannot be the sole basis for externment. The authority must show material indicating that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16054 WP No. 7930 of 2026 public at large are afraid to depose against a person. This Court cannot ignore the fact that externment is a drastic measure and therefore, the order must be preceded by specific reasons demonstrating the requisite ingredients of Section 55 of the Act. 14. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and absence of reasons, and is liable to be interfered with. 15. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The externment order dated 24.12.2025 passed by respondent No.2 in proceedings No. M.A.G(GA)CR/23/2025, evidenced at Annexure–A, is hereby quashed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16054 WP No. 7930 of 2026 (iii) It is however open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if circumstances so warrant in future. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4