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) 2246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Sri. shailesh S/o Sambhaji Bodhale - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 108832 of 2025 (GM-POLICE)
Decided On : 03-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Kishor Sudhakar Sutar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. T.Hanumareddy, AGA

An externment order requires clear justification under the applicable section, ensuring the principles of natural justice are followed, including the requirement of informing the general nature of allegations.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Police Act, 1963 - Sections 55 and 56 - Petition challenging externment order issued by Assistant Commissioner cum Sub Divisional Magistrate - The petitioner argues violation of natural justice by non-furnishing of all documents relevant to externment. The court reiterates that only the general nature of material allegations is needed. The court emphasizes the necessity for clear indication of the section under which an externment order is passed, especially the conjunctive nature of Section 55(b). It was determined that failure to comply warrants remittance for a properly reasoned order. (Paras 3, 11, 14)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Compliance with notice issuance and opportunity for hearing is mandatory, which was upheld. The order must be comprehensive regarding the legal basis for externment. (Paras 12, 13)

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks relief through writ. (Para 1)
2. hearing held with aid of counsel. (Para 2 , 3)

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 to quash the impugned order dated 05.11.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent i.e. The Assistant Commissioner Cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chikodi Sub- Division, Chikodi bearing No.MAG/CR-14/Gadiparu/2025-26 under section 55 and 56 of the KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 vide ANNEXURE-C in so far as petitioner is concern, in the interest of justice.

b. To Issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Kishor Sudhakar Sutar 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,

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