Externment orders must be based on objective evidence of current danger or harm, and must comply with procedural safeguards to ensure the protection of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

1. Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice for respondents.

2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order dtd. 28/7/2023 passed by the 2nd respondent/Assessment Commissioner cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bailhongal externing the petitioner from Bailhongal Sub-Division to Bagalkot for a period of three months.

3. Heard Sri Shriharsh A.Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioner is a resident of Bailhongal. The petitioner gets embroiled in 3 crimes, all for offences punishable under Sec. 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 ('Act' for short). The first of the crime was registered in the year 2015; the next in 2021 and the third in the year 2022, all for the aforesaid offence. The offence under Sec. 78(3) of the Act is admittedly noncognizable. It transpires that those cases which were in Crime Nos.41 of 2015, 127 of 2021 and 78 of 2022 have all been closed on imposition of fines. Notwithstanding their closure, a report appears to have been generated against the petitioner that he is involved in the aforesaid 3 crimes and on that score he has to be externed from Bailhongal to any other place. The said report against the petitioner is communicated to the petitioner to show cause as to why an order of externment should not be passed against him. The petitioner appears before the Assistant Commissioner and puts up his defence. Notwithstanding the said defence, the order of externment comes to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 28/7/2023. It is this order that is called in question in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the fundamental right of the petitioner is taken away for offences which are noncognizable and have all been closed by imposition of fines. He would contend that in gross misuse of power the order of externment is passed.

6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would seek to defend the action contending that the petitioner had become dangerous to the Society or the surrounding places and therefore, action had to be taken. He would submit that all the necessary procedures in law are followed prior to the order of externment.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. Before embarking upon consideration of the case on its merits, I deem it appropriate to notice the legal frame work under which an order of externment could be passed against any person. Chapter-II of the Act deals with dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons convicted of certain offences. Sec. 54 deals with dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons which is applicable to the case at hand. What is germane to be noticed is Ss. 55 to 60 and they read as follows:-

"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 sec. 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 sec., 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 r