The Court held that the petitioner must be informed of the general nature of allegations and that compliance with procedural requirements is essential for valid externment orders under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act.

ORDER :

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

I. Issue a writ in nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 18.06.2025 bearing no.MAG/CR/30/2025-26 vide Annexure-A issued by the 2^nd respondent in the interest of justice and equity.

II. Issue 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.S.R.Baligattimath appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA Sri.T.Hanumareddy representing respondents.

3. 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 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 allegations against the Petitioner, the Petitioner was well aware of what the Petitioner had to reply to.

10.7. Be that as it may, he submits that the police reports have been furnished to the Petitioners, this being done by the State in its fairness and not because the Petitioner is