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) 2151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Askar S/o Ramajan Pakali – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 104035 of 2025
Decided On : 08-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shivaraj P. Mudhol
For the Respondent: T. Hanumareddy

The court held that a person facing externment only needs to be informed of the general nature of material allegations, not all documents, and that clear grounds for the order must be specified.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Police Act, 1963 - Sections 55 and 58 - Writ seeking to quash externment notice - Principles of natural justice require that only the general nature of material allegations be communicated to the person sought to be externed; full documentation is not obligatory - The Assistant Commissioner must clearly indicate under which clause of Section 55 the order is made - Inadequate disclosure of grounds necessitates remittance to the authority for a fresh order (Paras 1-14).

(B) Judicial Review - Scope extends to ensure compliance with procedural requirements, particularly regarding the communication of material allegations under Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963 (Paras 13.4, 13.5).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the externment order in light of inadequate notice regarding essential documents, invoking principles of natural justice. The matter raises questions about the need for full disclosure and the clarity of the Assistant Commissioner's order.

Findings of Court:
The notice must provide a clear basis for the externment under the appropriate section of law, ensuring the petitioner understands the charges against them.

Issues: The court addressed whether all relevant documents must be provided to the externed party and the necessity for the Assistant Commissioner to disclose witness availability prior to externment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that general information suffices for externment notices, and requires the Assistant Commissioner to specify legal grounds for the externment order clearly.

Result: Writ petition partly allowed; externment order quashed and remitted for a fresh decision within 15 days.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks relief against notice. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 3)

ORDER :

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

A. To issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari and quash the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 17/05/2025 in No.MAG/2025-26/299041 vide Annexure- A.

B. To issue any other order or direction as deems fit by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Shivaraj P. Mudhol, 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 being done by the State in its fairness and not because the Petitioner is entitled thereto.

10.8. He relies on Hari Khemu Gawali’s case to contend that what is required to be in

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