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) 2276

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
 
Shri. Praveen Narasimhappa Tappareshi – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Home Department and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 107959 of 2025 (GM-POLICE)
Decided On : 01-12-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Girish S. Hiremath, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. T. Hanumareddy, AGA

The court clarified that under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, only general nature of allegations must be provided before externment and not all documents, ensuring compliance with natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers and Slum Grabbers Act, 1963 - Sections 55 and 58 - Externment proceedings - The petitioner contested the non-furnishing of all police documents prior to externment, claiming violation of natural justice - The court held that the principle of natural justice was followed and only general allegations need be communicated, not all documents, as per the provisions of Section 58 - In determining the grounds for externment, the Assistant Commissioner must specify whether powers are exercised under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 55, particularly regarding witness willingness, affecting whether an externment order is sustainable - The court's final order remanded the case for clarification on the section under which the order was passed. (Paras 10.21, 11.10, 12.13 and 14.1)

(B) Judicial Review - The scope of judicial review in externment matters is strictly limited to whether the procedure under Section 58 has been followed or whether there was material to justify the order. (Paras 13.2 and 13.3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the externment on procedural grounds under the KP Act, arguing that not all relevant documents prior to the decision were provided, impacting his ability to mount an adequate defense.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the adequacy of procedures followed and specified the need for clarity in the Assistant Commissioner's order regarding the applicable clause of Section 55.

Issues: The main issues addressed include the necessity of providing all police reports to the person targeted for externment and the Assistant Commissioner's obligation to comment on witness statements.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts need to ensure that any externment order complies with statutory requirements of documenting witness willingness and the general nature of allegations without necessitating full disclosure of all police documents.

Result: The writ petition was partly allowed, and the earlier externment order was set aside, with directions for a fresh order to be made.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the case (Para 1 , 2)
2. issues for consideration (Para 3)

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

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

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Girish Hiremath 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 informed to the person sought to be externed is the general nature of material allegations. There is no requirement to furnish all documents and/or copies. The externment order being required to be passed by a higher official like the Assistant Commissioner, the legislature has thought it f

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