Karnataka High Court
Sri Syed Ruman @ Ruman vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29649
WP No. 12667 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. 12667 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SRI SYED RUMAN @ RUMAN
S/O SYED USMAN,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO.272/04,
NEAR TIPU MASIDI, GALIPURA,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANOJ S N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed ASSISTANT DISTRICT EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,
by KOLEGALA SUB-DIVISION,
LEELAVATHI S KOLEGALA-571 440.
R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KARNATAKA CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S T NAIK.,AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 08/04/2024 PASSED IN BEARING NO.
MAG(GA)/CR/05/2023-24, DATED 08/04/2024 PASSED BY THE R2 AS PER
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29649
WP No. 12667 of 2024
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 08.04.2024,
passed by the 2nd respondent under Sections 55 and 56 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
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
NC: 2024:KHC:29649
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
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 08.04.2024 deserves to be quashed.
6. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:29649
(ii) The impugned order dated 08.04.2024 at Annexure-A
passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
BMC
