Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manjunath Nayak @ Manju Nayak vs State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29650
WP No. 12712 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 12712 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJUNATH NAYAK @ MANJU NAYAK
S/O. CHANDRA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT MELINANAIKARADAHALLI,
ANTHARAHALLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
(NOTE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND
HIS FATHER NAME, HIS AGE AND ADDRESS IS
MENTIONED AS PER THE AADHAAR CARD OF THE
PETITIONER)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH S HALAWAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
LEELAVATHI S REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
R DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
Location: HIGH VIDHANA SOUDHA,
COURT OF DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CUM SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPURA,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 103.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BANGALORE RURAL,
BANGALORE-560 052.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29650
WP No. 12712 of 2024
4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN POLICE STATION,
DEVANAHALLI HIGHWAY, DODDABALLAPURA,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203,
REP. BY HCGP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S T NAIK.,AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER NO. M.A.G.S.R. 57/2023 DATED 26/03/2024
PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUM SUB-
DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT R1 TO 4 NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE
LAWFUL ACTIVITIES CARRIED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the
impugned externment order at Annexure-A dated 26.03.2024,
passed by the 2nd respondent under Sections 55 (a) and (b) of the
Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short "the K.P. Act").
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged
in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on
NC: 2024:KHC:29650
record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent directing externment
of the petitioner is not only contrary to the provisions and procedure
prescribed / contained in Sections 55 to 58 of the K.P.Act, but also
against the principles governing externment as enunciated by the
Apex Court in the case of Deepak vs. State of Maharashtra -
2022 SCC OnLine SC 99 which has been followed by this Court in
the case of Giddappa Vs. Lambu Giddappa Vs. State of
Karnataka and others - W.P.No.8182/2023 dated 21.04.2023 and
in the case of Shakeeb @ Mohammed Shakeebullah vs. State of
Karnataka & others - W.P.No.14426/2023 dated 28.11.2023. It is
therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by the
respondents deserve to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents would
support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in
the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, a perusal of the material on record including the
impugned order will clearly indicate that the 2nd respondent has
failed to follow the mandatory requirements and procedure
NC: 2024:KHC:29650
prescribed under Sections 55 to 58 of the Karnataka Police Act,
while passing the impugned order which is clearly contrary to the
principles enunciated by the Apex Court and this Court in the
judgments referred to supra. Under these circumstances, I am of
the view that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent at
Annexure-A dated 26.03.2024 deserves to be quashed.
6. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 26.03.2024 at Annexure-A
passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
BMC
