1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the orders passed by the District Magistrate, U.K. Karwar dated 31.08.2016 in M.A.G. 25.02.2016 UK-M.A.G. 1 under Section 55(A)(B) of the Karnataka Police Act (for short ‘K.P. Act’).

2. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader and perused the impugned orders.

3. Under the impugned order the District Magistrate has passed externment order against the petitioner directing the Police to send the petitioner out of Karwar District for a period of three months and also directed the Police, if the petitioner appears in the said area he should be arrested and proceeding shall be initiated under Section 61 of the K.P. Act.

4. The records disclose that on 05.03.2016 the Superintendent of Police, U.K. Karwar District has submitted a report to the District Magistrate stating that the petitioner is a rowdy element and there are as many as four cases registered against him under the provisions of K.P. Act as well as under the provisions under I.P.C. Further, six cases are initiated against him u/s. 107 of Cr.P.C. Out of them all the four criminal cases registered against him before the Court have been ended in acquittal. Four cases registered u/s. 107 of Cr.P.C. were ended in petitioner executing bonds in favour of the Taluka Executive Magistrate. However, two cases are still pending for enquiry.

5. On the basis of the above materials the Superintendent of Police was of the opinion that inspite of above said criminal cases and 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings being initiated against the petitioner, he has not stopped his illegal activities and is provoking the people in the said area and there is apprehension of danger to the public peace. Therefore, he requested the District Magistrate to take appropriate action u/s. 55 (A)(B) of the K.P. Act.

6. On receipt of the above said report from the Superintendent of Police the District Magistrate has issued a show cause notice on 17.05.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner has appeared before the District Magistrate and engaged a counsel, filed his objections and documents and thereafter argued the matter through his counsel. After hearing both the parties the District Magistrate was of the opinion that Bhatkal taluk is known for its communal differences and there are chances of communal clashes in the said area, therefore, he has passed the impugned order.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that Annexure-B, which is the show-cause notice, itself is not valid and it is not in compliance with Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act. Secondly, he contends that though the District Magistrate has culled out in his order, the objections filed by the petitioner and also referred to the documents produced by him, he has not discussed anything about the objections and the documents produced by the petitioner is concerned. He has not stated as to why the proceedings have to be concluded by passing the impugned orders. Further, the learned counsel contends before this Court that the District Magistrate except stating, in one sentence, that there are chances of communal clashes in the said area, he has not stated anything as to how he has considered the objections and the documents produced by the petitioner herein.

8. The learned Government Pleader supported the orders passed by the learned District Magistrate by submitting that the order passed by the District Magistrate is not a shortcut order; the District Magistrate has considered all the objections and also by recording his satisfaction, and thereafter passed the impugned orders. Therefore, the Government Pleader submits that the order impugned does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court.

9. Now before adverting to the above submissions, it is just and necessary to look into the relevant provisions of K.P. Act. In order to initiate the proceedings and to proceed with the same under Section 55 of the Act, to