SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1974

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Basavaraj S/O. Shrishailappa Gadekar - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, By Its Principal Secretary, Home Department – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 109740 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
Decided On : 15-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Shriprasad J. Joshi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, Hcgp

An externment order must clearly articulate the statutory provision it relies on and adhere to natural justice principles, providing only general material allegations without requiring full document disclosure.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 1963 - Sections 55 and 58 - Order of externment issued against an individual without proper disclosure of documents and adherence to procedural requirements - Appellate review indicates necessity for clarity regarding the statutory basis of the externment order and compliance with principles of natural justice - Factors determining reasonable grounds for externment outlined. (Paras 9-14)

(B) Natural Justice - The requirement for an individual to be provided with the general nature of material allegations against them - All documents or complete disclosure is not mandated, only general information suffices. (Paras 10-12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an externment order passed against them under the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, following their involvement in crimes under the Act and the Indian Penal Code, citing procedural violations. The order was criticized for failing to specify which statutory provision it was based on.

Findings of Court:
The externment order was quashed due to lack of clarity on its statutory basis and procedural compliance. The matter was remitted for issuance of a new reasoned order.

Issues: Whether the Assistant Commissioner must indicate witness availability when passing an externment order, and whether the principles of natural justice were followed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that providing the general nature of material allegations suffices for adherence to natural justice—complete disclosure is not required, and the statutory basis for the order must be clearly articulated.

Result: Writ petition partly allowed; order quashed and remitted for further proceedings.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's plea for quashing externment order. (Para 1 , 3)
2. arguments regarding the procedure for externment. (Para 4)

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioner before this Court seeking the following prayer:

i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the impugned order issued by the Respondent No.03 dated 11/12/2025 bearing No.MAG/POL/CR-48/22-23 which is marked at Annexure - A so far as the petitioner is concerned.

ii. Grant any other relief deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner gets embroiled in two crimes, one under the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act and the other under the for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. On the score that the petitioner has got emobroiled in the aforesaid crimes, an order of externment is passed against the petitioner on 11.12.2025 externing him from Gadag District to Belagavi District.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the procedure that is stipulated by the Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.30021/2025 disposed off on 17.11.2025 has not been followed. The Co-ordinate Bench is held as follows:

8. The points that would arise for consideration are;

1. Whether all police reports and documents, including FIR, statements, charge sheet, etc., are required to be furnished to the person who is sought to be externed?

2. Whether there is a requirement in all cases for the Assistant Commissioner to consider and State as to whether witnesses have not come forward or would not come forward to depose against the person who is sought to be externed, if he continues to reside within the jurisdiction?

3. Whether the principles of natural Justice have been followed in the present case?

4. Is there any infirmity in the impugned order requiring this Court to intercede?

5. What order?

9. I answer the above points as follows;

10. Answer to point No.1: Whether all police reports and documents, including FIR, statements, charge sheet, etc., are required to be furnished to the person who is sought to be externed?

10.1. The submission of Sri.Tharanath Poojary., learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, is that without the reports and documents being furnished along with the show-cause notice, the Petitioner as the addressee of the notice, would not know what to reply to. The principle of natural Justice would stand completely violated if they are not furnished.

10.2. After the appearance of the Petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, two additional cases were filed. Though a request had been made for furnishing the same, copies were not furnished. On that ground, he submits that the rights of the Petitioner have been adversely affected.

10.3. In that regard, he has relied upon the decision in Sachin M.R’s case and contends that if all documents are not furnished, and there is no acknowledgement of such service on the externee, then the order for the externment would be required to be set aside.

10.4. A persusal of said judgment in Sachin's case does not indicate that it is so inasmuch as that decision was one relating to service of notice and not service of documents, and it is in the background of the show-cause notice not having been issued, that the above observations were made.

10.5. In the present case, the issue raised by the Petitioner is as regards service of documents and not that of service of notice, notice having been received and acknowledged by the Petitioner to have been so received, and sunsequently having been represented by legal counsel in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner.

10.6. Learned Advocate General would submit that under Sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963, all the documents and details are not required to be furnished; only material allegations are required to be made known to the person sought to be externed. The show-cause notice detailing the al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top