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) 2146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Abdul @ Banja Gaibusab Mujawar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 109424 of 2025
Decided On : 08-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : D.L. Ladkhan
For the Respondent: T. Hanumareddy

Only the general nature of material allegations must be provided in externment cases, not the entire documentation, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Police Act, 1963 - Sections 55 and 58 - Writ petition challenging externment order - The petitioner contended that principles of natural justice were violated due to non-furnishing of police reports and documentation relevant to the externment - The court held that only the general nature of material allegations needs to be provided, not all documents; compliance with natural justice was affirmed as notice and hearing were provided - The order was quashed and remitted for reassessment by the authority specifying the provisions applied. (Paras 10.21, 12.1, 14.1)

(B) Judicial Review - Externment orders impact Article 21 rights and are subject to judicial review if procedural compliance is lacking; clarity in the order as to the applicable provisions of the law is crucial. (Paras 11.6, 13.3)

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks relief against externment order. (Para 1 , 3)
2. legal requirements for externment orders. (Para 4)
3. writ petition outcome and remittance to authority. (Para 5)

ORDER :

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

a. Issue a writ or order or any direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by Respondent No.3, Assistant Commissioner and sub divisional Executive Magistrate in No.Kra./MAG/CR/26/2025-26 dated 16-09-2025, vide ANNEXURE-A.

b. Issue any other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary to protect the liberty of petitioner pursuant to passing of order by Respondent No.3, vide ANNEXURE-A, in the interest of justice.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. D.L. Ladkhan appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA Sri. T. Hanumareddy representing respondents.

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

The 5th respondent-Circle Police Inspector files an application seeking an order of externment against the petitioner on the score that the petitioner is embroiled in several crimes. An enquiry notice comes to be issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police seeking reasons as to why the petitioner should not be exiled. The said enquiry notice is admittedly issued to the petitioner without appending any police report against the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order is passed against the petitioner on 16.09.2025 under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 exiling the petitioner from Bagalkote to Mysuru for a period of 6 months. The petitioner is now before this Court calling in question the order of externment dated 16.09.2025.

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 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

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