The externment order's validity hinges on clear procedural compliance; lack of explicit reasoning for witness unavailability violates natural justice principles, reaffirming the right to fair legal processes.

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

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

i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the R2 made in No. MAGCR (Gadiparu)/18/2025-26 vide Annexure-A, in the interest of Justice and equity

ii. Pass such other writ or order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice and equity.

2. The Petitioner claims that on 18.07.2025 a show- cause notice was issued to the Petitioner under Section 58 of the KARNATAKA POLICE ACT , 1963 (herein after referred to as “KP Act, 1963”) asking him to appear before the Assistant Commissioner and also the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to show-cause against his proposed externment under Section 55 (a) and (b) of the KP Act, 1963.

3. In the said notice, the reports of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, dated 12.05.2025, and the Inspector of Police, dated 11.05.2025, were mentioned. It is contended that the externment of the Petitioner is based on 21 criminal cases filed against the Petitioner from 1992 onwards. In the said notice, it was alleged that the Petitioner had spearheaded agitations insofar as Sowjanya’s murder was concerned.

4. The Petitioner was served with another show-cause notice on 20.08.2025, citing 24 criminal cases, and was required to submit a reply to the Assistant Commissioner by 20.08.2025. The Petitioner has appeared before the Assistant Commissioner, who, vide the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure-A), had directed the externment of the Petitioner. It is challenging the same, that the Petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

5. Sri. Tharanath Poojary., learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that;

5.1. All the reports and documents were not furnished along with the show-cause notice.

5.2. The details of all cases have not been furnished. The Petitioner has been harassed by the Respondent police by filing false cases. Five cases have been filed in recent years, two of which were filed after the notice was issued. These factors were not brought to the notice of the Petitioner, and without doing so, the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order without applying his mind.s

5.3. The principles of natural Justice have been completely violated by the Respondents by not furnishing all the documents and details relied upon by the Assistant Commissioner.

5.4. The Petitioner has been targeted for carrying out agitations which are in the public interest. Several complaints have been filed against the Petitioner regarding the agitation.

5.5. The respondents are completely ill-disposed towards the Petitioner. In that background, he submits that an appeal under Section 59 of the KP Act, 1963, is not an adequate alternative remedy and, as such, he submits that this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

5.6. In the impugned order, five reports are mentioned. When the Petitioner had appeared before the Assistant Commissioner on 01.09.2025, two additional cases were placed on record. Although a direction was issued to the respondents to furnish the details, and a request was made by the Petitioner, his submission on instructions is that the case details had not been furnished to the Petitioner. Therefore, he submits that action has been taken against the Petitioner without complying with the principles of natural Justice.

5.7. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Criminal Appeal No.139/2022, more particularly para 6, 7, 11 and 12 thereof, which are reprod