The court established that only material allegations need to be disclosed to a person sought to be externed, and the externment order must clearly indicate the provision under which it was passed.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

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

“a) Issue a Writ in nature of certiorari quashing the order passed in No.CHP/ Vi.Ka.Da/ COP/ Hu-Dha/ GADIPARU/ 99/ 2025, dated 21.11.2025 by Respondent No.2, vide Annexure-C in the interest of justice and equity.

b) Any other reliefs this Hon’ble Court deems fit may please be granted in favour of the present petitioner.”

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Nadeem Rahimsab appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA Sri. T. Hanumareddy representing respondents.

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

The 4^th respondent-Police Inspector files an application seeking an order of externment against the petitioner on the score that the petitioner is embroiled in several crimes. A show cause notice comes to be issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2 under Section 58 of the KARNATAKA POLICE ACT , 1963 seeking reasons as to why the petitioner should not be exiled. Thereafter, the impugned order is passed against the petitioner on 21.11.2025 under Section 55 of the KARNATAKA POLICE ACT , 1963 exiling the petitioner from the jurisdiction of the Hubballi- Dharwad Police Commissionerate to the jurisdiction of the Jevargi Police Station in Kalaburagi District for a period of 6 months. The petitioner is now before this Court calling in question the order of externment dated 21.11.2025.

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 17^th 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