Karnataka High Court
Gangadhar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29994
WP No. 11313 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. 11313 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
GANGADHAR
S/O LATE NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
OCC-VEGETABLE MERCHANT
R/A OLD KUMBARA BEEDI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-561 202.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Digitally signed BENGALURU-560 001.
by
LEELAVATHI S
R 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
Location: HIGH SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
COURT OF MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION
KARNATAKA
MADHUGIRI
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 132.
3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
TUMKUR DISTRICT
TUMKUR-572 101.
4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPURA-532 101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29994
WP No. 11313 of 2024
5. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION
MADHUGIRI
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
6. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPURA
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-532 101.
7. POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
PAVAGADA POLICE STATION
PAVAGADA
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 141.
8. POLICE INSPECTOR/STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN POLICE STATION
CHIKKABALLAPURA
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-532 101.
9. THASILDAR PAVAGADA TALUK PAVAGAD
TUMKUR DISTRICT-561 202
(RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED
BY ADVOCATE GENERAL/
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560 001).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.T. NAIK, AGA)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 10/04/2024 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER AND SUB-DIVSIONAL MAGISTRATE, MADHUGIRI
SUB-DIVISION, MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR DISTRICT / R2 IN NO. MAG
(GADIPAARU) 21/2023-24 AS PER ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29994
WP No. 11313 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-C dated 10.04.2024, 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 Karnataka & others - W.P.No.14426/2023
NC: 2024:KHC:29994
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-
C dated 10.04.2024 deserves to be quashed.
6. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 10.04.2024 at Annexure-C passed
by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
