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) 2138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
 
Sanjay, S/o. Ashok ratan, Appellant 
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Principal, Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 109337 Of 2025 (GM-POLICE)
Decided On : 05-12-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. G. S. Mot, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri. T. Hanumareddy, AGA., Adv.

An externment order must specify the applicable legal provision and adhere to procedural fairness, including proper disclosure of material allegations and opportunities for the individual to respond.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Police Act, 1963 - Sections 55 and 58 - Externment order - Non-disclosure of applicable provision leading to procedural infirmities - The Assistant Commissioner must expressly indicate under which Clause the externment order is passed and comply with necessary requirements. (Paras 11.1, 12.1, 14.1)

(B) Natural Justice - Requirement to provide an opportunity of hearing and issue notice upheld. (Paras 12.1, 13.1)

(C) Judicial Review - Scope under the KP Act, 1963 emphasized, including the necessity of disclosing material allegations against the externee. (Paras 13.2, 13.3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks to quash an externment order by asserting that the authority did not comply with procedural requirements articulated in the KP Act, particularly regarding the necessity of furnishing documents and stating the applicable provision for such actions.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the order failed to clarify whether it fell under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 55, warranting remand for further proceedings.

Issues: The court addressed whether all police documents must be disclosed to the person sought to be externed, the requirement for the Assistant Commissioner to affirm witness intimidation, and adherence to natural justice principles.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that subsections of the KP Act impose a duty on authorities to articulate clear grounds for externment orders and fulfill the obligations of procedural fairness.

Result: Writ petition partly allowed, and the externment order set aside, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks relief against externment order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. points of law regarding police reports for externment. (Para 3)

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

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

I. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 22.11.2025 and on Amended 27.11.2025 BEARING NO.KRA.CHP.VIKAD/COP/HU- DHA/GADIPARU/102/2025 vide Annexure-E passed by the 2nd respondent in the interest of justice and equity.

II. 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. 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 17th 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 bei

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