An externment order must clearly state the grounds for action and comply with principles of natural justice, which includes providing necessary details to the affected individual.

ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

a. “Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 19.11.2025 bearing no. KRA./CHP/VIKAD/COP/HU- DHA/ GADIPARU/85/2025 vide Annexure-E passed by the 2^nd respondent in the interest of justice and equity.

b. Issue any 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. Heard the learned counsel Sri. G.S.Mot, appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA Sri. T. Hanumareddy representing respondents.

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

The 3^rd respondent-Police Inspector files an application seeking an order of externment against the petitioner on the score that the petitioner is embroiled in several crimes. The 2^nd respondent thus issues show cause notices to the petitioner on 03.11.2025, 07.11.2025 and 19.11.2025 under Section 58 of the KARNATAKA POLICE ACT , 1963 seeking reasons as to why the petitioner should not be exiled from Hubballi to Koppal. The said show cause notices are admittedly issued to the petitioner without appending any police report against the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order is passed against the petitioner on 19.11.2025 under Section 55 of the KARNATAKA POLICE ACT , 1963 exiling the petitioner from Hubballi to Koppal for a period of 6 months. The petitioner is now before this Court calling in question the order of externment dated 19.11.2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.30021/2025, disposed off on 17^th November 2025, wherein it 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 serv