(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
a. "Issue a writ in the nature of
Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 05.11.2025,
passed by the 2nd respondent i.e. The Assistant
Commissioner Cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chikodi Sub-
Division, Chikodi bearing No.MAG/CR-14/Gadiparu/2025-26
under section 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act 1963
vide ANNEXURE-C in so far as petitioner is concern, in the
interest of justice.
b. To Issue any other order or direction
as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice."
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Kishor Sudhakar Sutar
appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA Sri. T.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
10.7. Be that as it may, he submits that the police
reports have been furnished to the Petitioners, this
being done by the State in its fairness and not
because the Petitioner is entitled thereto.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17236
HC-KAR
10.8. He relies on Hari Khemu Gawali's case to contend
that what is required to be informed to the person
sought to be externed is the general nature of
material allegations. There is no requirement to
furnish all documents and/or copies. The
externment order being required to be passed by a
higher official like the Assistant Commissioner, the
legislature has thought it fit to interest such a
higher officer with the responsibility to pass such an
order, who would consider the matter on the merits
thereof, and only if satisfied that the circumstances
exist for passing a preventive order, such an order
would be passed. This discretion being exercised by
the higher officer, the order on the face of it
reflecting that there is an application of mind, this
Court ought not to intercede in the matter.
10.9. He also relies upon the decision in Pandharinath
Shridhar Rangnekar's case and submits that full
and complete disclosure of particulars would
frustrate the very purpose of the externment. The
police reports and other reports containing sensitive
information, including the complete details of the
incident, the persons involved, and witnesses, etc.,
those details, if furnished, would lead to an adverse
effect in the investigation.
10.10. Reliance is also placed on Salem Hasan
Khan's case to contend that the externee is only
entitled to be informed of the general nature of the
material allegations. These being the arguments
advanced, it would be required for this Court to
ascertain the requirement under law.
10.11. Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963 is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference.
55. Removal of persons about to commit offences.--Whenever it
shall appear in the City of Bangalore and other areas for which
a Commissioner has been appointed under section 7 to the
Commissioner, and in other area or areas to which the
Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, extend
the provision of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction and specially
empowered by the Government in that behalf,--
(a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated
to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, or
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17236
HC-KAR
(b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is
engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an
offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable
under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in
the abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of
such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give
evidence in public against such person by reason of
apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person
or property, or
(c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the
continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by
an order in writing duly served on him, or by beat of drum or
otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant so
to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent
violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of such disease
or to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of
his jurisdiction or such area and any district or districts or any
part thereof contiguous thereto by such route and within such
time as the said officer may specify and not to enter, or return
to the said place from which he was directed to remove
himself.
10.12. A perusal of Section 55 would indicate that
whenever it appears that in the city of Bangalore
and other areas for which a Commissioner has been
appointed, that the movements or acts of any
person are causing or calculated to cause alarm
from a danger or harm to person or property, or if
there are reasonable grounds for believing that
such person is engaged or is about to be engaged
in the commission of an offence involving force or
violence, or an offence punishable under Chapter
XII, XVI and XVII of the IPC, or in the abetment of
any such offence and when in the opinion of such
officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to
give evidence in public against such person by
reason of apprehension on their part as regards the
safety or their personal property, then an order of
externment could be passed.
10.13. Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963, is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference.
58. Hearing to be given before an order is passed under section
54, 55 or 56.--
(1) Before an order under Section 54, 55 or 56 is passed against any
person, the officer acting under any of the said sections or any
officer above the rank of an Inspector authorised by that officer
shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of the
material allegations against him and give him a reasonable
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17236
HC-KAR
opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. If
such person makes an application for the examination of any
witness, produced by him, the Authority or officer concerned
shall grant such application and examine such witness, unless
for reasons to be recorded in writing the Authority or officer is
of opinion that such application is made for the purpose of
vexation or delay. Any written statement put in by such person
shall be filed with the record of the case. Such person shall be
entitled to appear before the officer proceeding under this
section by a legal practitioner for the purposes of tendering his
explanation and examining the witnesses produced by him.
(2) The Authority or officer proceeding under sub-section (1) may, for
the purpose of securing the attendance of any person against
whom any order is proposed to be made under section 54, 55
or 56 require such person to appear before him and to furnish
a security bond with or without sureties for such attendance
during the inquiry. If the person fails to furnish the security
bond as required or fails to appear before the officer or
Authority during the inquiry, it shall be lawful to the officer or
Authority to proceed with the inquiry and thereupon such order
as was proposed to be passed against him may be passed.
10.14. A perusal of Sub-section (1) of Section 58 of
the KP Act, 1963 would indicate that before an
order under Section 54, 55 or 56 is passed against
any person, an officer acting under any of the said
sections shall inform the person in writing of the
general nature of the material allegation against
him and gave him a reasonable opportunity of
tending an explanation regarding them. If such a
person who is sought to be externed makes an
application for the examination of any witness
produced by him, the Authority or officer concerned
shall grant such application and examine such
witness unless, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, the Authority or officer is of the opinion
that such application is made for the purpose of
vexation or delay.
10.15. Any written statement put in by such a
person shall be filed with the record of the case,
and such person shall be entitled to appear before
the officer proceeding under Section 58 of the KP
Act, 1963, by a legal practitioner for the purpose of
tendering his explanation and examining the
witnesses produced by him.
10.16. Sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the KP Act,
1963 deals with securing the attendance of any
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17236
HC-KAR
person against whom the order is proposed to be
passed and for that purpose to secure bonds etc.,
Thus, in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 58 it is
clear that what is required to be informed to the
person who is sought to be externed is the general
nature of the material allegation against him, which
should be given in writing and a reasonable
opportunity of tendering and explanation regarding
it.
10.17. The statute requiring information of the
general nature of material allegation, it is not
sustainable for the Petitioner to contend that all
reports and documents are required to be made
available.
10.18. Looked at from another angle, the
information required to be given under Sub-section
(1) of Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963 would require
detailing the pending or disposed criminal
proceedings, the allegations against the proposed
externee and the possible reasons as to why the
externment order is proposed to be made.
10.19. Insofar as the pending or disposed matters,
the externee would be well aware of the details
thereof, being a party to those proceedings, the
documents thereof would also be available with the
proposed externee. As such, the question of
providing details thereof would not arise. This
would necessarily have to be caveated with the
situation where the proposed externee is not a
party to those proceedings and/or did not have
access to the copies of the papers in those
proceedings. In those circumstances it would be
required for the concerned officer acting under
Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963, to provide the
papers of the proceedings.
10.20. Insofar as the police reports are concerned,
as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar's case full
and complete disclosure of particulars would
frustrate the very purpose of externment. Thus, in
my considered opinion, providing of the police
report would amount to full and complete
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17236
HC-KAR
disclosure, and those police report containing
sensitive information, the Petitioner would not be
entitled to the entire report/reports but would only
be entitled to be informed of the general nature of
the material allegation made against him.
10.21. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding
that in cases relating to externment, all police
reports and documents, including FIR,
statements, charge sheet etc, are not required
to be furnished to the person who is sought to
be externed. General information of the
material allegations, in the police report,
documents, FIR, statements, charge sheet
would have to be provided in writing to the
person sought to be externed.
10.22. It is again reiterated that copies of
those documents are not required to be
provided. Whether the general nature of
material allegations has been provided in the
notice issued under Sub-section (1) of Section
58 of the KP Act, 1963 would be the subject
matter of an appeal, if and when filed under
Sub-section (1) of Section 59 of the KP Act,
1963. Since, the same would relate to
disputed questions of fact, which would have
to be considered by the Appellate Authority.
11. Answer to point No.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?
11.1. Sri Tharanath Poojari., learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioner has sought to contend that before
passing an order of externment, it is required for
the Competent Authority in this case the Assistant
Commissioner to have categorically stated that
witnesses have not come forward or would not
come forward to depose against the Petitioner who
is sought to be externed, if he continues to reside
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17236
HC-KAR
within the jurisdiction. He bases the said
submission on the decision in Deepak S/o
Laxman Dongre's Case and submits that a
Competent Authority is required to be satisfied and
express such satisfaction in the order passed on the
basis of the material on record that witnesses are
not willing to come forward to give evidence against
the person proposed to be externed on account of
their apprehension as regards their safety or that
their of property, if they were to depose against the
person sought to be externed. Reliance is also
placed on the decision of Aluru Kadasidda's case
to a similar effect.
11.2. Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963 has been extracted
hereinabove. Clause (b) of Section 55 of the KP Act,
1963, which has been dealt with in answer to point
No.1, clearly mandates that when in the opinion of
such officer witnesses are not willing to come
forward to give evidence in public against such
person, by reason of apprehension on their part as
regards the safety of their person or property.
11.3. The usage of the word in Clause (b) of sub-section
55 of the KP Act, 1963 is "and" i.e., to say, there
has to be a reasonable ground for believing such
person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the
commission of an offence involving force or violence
or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI
and XVII of the Indian Penal Code or the abatement
of any such offence. When, in the opinion of such
officer, witnesses are not willing to come forward to
give evidence in public..... Thus, the usage of the
word being "and", which is conjunctive, both
requirements are to be satisfied under Clause (b) of
Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963.
11.4. It is not only for reasonable grounds to be in
existence, indicating the person sought to be
externed is engaged or is about to be engaged in
the commission of an offence. It should also be that
witness/es would not come forward, it is only then
could an order of externment be passed.
11.5. The submission of the learned Advocate General
that serious offences have been alleged against the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17236
HC-KAR
Petitioner, no witnesses would come forward, would
not suffice the requirements of judicial review to be
exercised by this Court when an order of
externment, which impacts right to life and liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has
been passed. There being no dispute that an order
of externment would be one which impacts the
right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
11.6. As indicated, Supra, the conjunctive "and" having
been used, the order of the Assistant Commissioner
would have to be clear and categorical and comply
with the requirements of Section 55 of the KP Act,
1963, which includes Clause (b) thereof.
11.7. The reason for the same is not far to see, since
every person who commits an offence or is likely to
commit an offence is not externed. The powers
under Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963 would have to
be exercised in terms of Clause (a), where the
movements or acts of any person are causing or
calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to
person or property or in terms of Clause (b) as
aforesaid. If powers are exercised under Clause (b)
of Section 55, the conjunctive word "and" having
been used, both the requirements aforesaid have to
be complied with.
11.8. The matter would be different if the powers are
exercised under Clause (a) or Clause (c) of Section
55, which do not require such a condition to be
satisfied.
11.9. In the present case, though it is stated that the
powers under Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963 have
been exercised, it is not clear as to whether it is
under Clause (a), Clause (b) or Clause (c) [it
cannot be Clause (c) since the same is not
attracted]. The powers could have been exercised
under Clause (a) or Clause (b), it was required for
the Assistant Commissioner to have categorically
indicated as to under which provision the order was
passed.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17236
HC-KAR
11.10. If it had been passed under Clause (b) of
Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963, in view of the use
of the conjunctive "and" both the requirements
would have to be satisfied. In the event of powers
being exercised under Clause (a), externment could
be made only if the movements or acts of any
person are causing or calculated to cause alarm,
danger or harm to person or property.
11.11. Since the disjunctive "or" has been used
between Clause (a) and Clause (b) as indicated
supra, the impugned order does not indicate under
which provision the order has been passed to
ascertain whether the requirement of that provision
have been satisfied.
11.12. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding
that, in all cases, there is no requirement 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. Since the same would not get
attracted, if an order under Clause (a) of
Section 55 is passed. Such an order would be
required to be passed only if power is
exercised under Clause (b) of Section 55 of
the KP Act, 1963.
12. Answer to point No.3: Whether the principles
of natural Justice have been followed in the
present case?
12.1. Principles of natural Justice contemplate issuance of
notice, providing an opportunity of hearing and a
reasoned order to be passed amongst other things.
12.2. In the present case, a notice has been issued to the
Petitioner, he has been heard in the matter, and a
reasoned order has been passed, thereby
complying with the requirements of the principles of
natural Justice.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17236
HC-KAR
13. Answer to point No.4: Whether there is any
infirmity in the impugned order requiring this
Court to intercede?
13.1. Section 60 of the KP Act, 1963, is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference;
60. Finality of orders.--Any order passed under Section 54, 55 or 56
or by the Government under section 59 shall not be called in
question in any court except on the ground that the Authority
making the order or any officer authorised by it had not
followed the procedure laid down in sub-section (1) of section
58 or that there was no material before the Authority
concerned upon which it could have based its order or on the
ground that the said Authority was not of opinion that
witnesses were unwilling to come forward to give evidence in
public against the person in respect of whom an order was
made under section 55.
13.2. Though an appeal under Section 59 of the KP Act,
1963 has been provided, Section 60 provides for
the scope of judicial review dehors the appellate
remedy. This has probably having been provided
since an order of externment directly impacts the
fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21
of the Constitution of India.
13.3. A perusal of Section 60 of the KP Act, 1963 would
indicate that any order passed under Section 54, 55
or 56 or by the Government under Section 59 of
the KP Act, 1963 shall not be called in question by
any Court except on the ground that the Authority
making the order or any officer authorised by it had
not followed the procedure laid down in Sub-section
(1) of Section 58 or that there was no material
before the Authority concerned upon which it could
have based its order or on the ground that the said
Authority was not of opinion that witnesses were
unwilling to come forward to give evidence in public
against the person in respect of whom an order was
made under Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963.
13.4. Section 60 of the KP Act, 1963 again uses the
disjunctive word "or" inasmuch as it is Section 54,
55 or 56 or by the Government under Section 59. If
it was only Section 59 which had been used in
Section 60, then an appeal would be the only
remedy available for an order passed under Section
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17236
HC-KAR
55. Since the disjunctive "or" has been used at any
stage of the order i.e., if an order is passed under
Section 54 or 55 or 56, then the same would be
subject to judicial review under Section 60 of the
KP Act, 1963.
13.5. Of course, an order under Section 59 i.e., an
appeal, would always be subject to judicial review.
However the judicial review is restricted to only a
situation where the procedure laid down under Sub-
section (1) of Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963 has
not been followed or that there was no material
before the Authority concerned upon which it could
have based its order or on the ground there is said
Authority was not of opinion that witness were
unwilling to come forward to give evidence in
public. The disjunctive "or" having been used all of
them would have to be read separately and not
together.
13.6. Though the submission of, Sri Tharanath Poojari,
learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, is that in
every order of externment it should be reflected
that witnesses are not willing to come forward for
an order of externment to be passed, I have dealt
with the same in my answer to point No.2 and
indicated in what circumstances the same would
apply.
13.7. Section 60 of the KP Act, 1963 is worded in the
negative; there has to be an opinion that witnesses
are not unwilling to come forward to give evidence
in public for Section 60 of the KP Act, 1963 to
apply. The wording being as it is, I am of the
considered opinion that the same would be relevant
only if an externment order is passed under Clause
(b) of Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963 and that is
the reason why the disjunctive "or" has been used
in Section 60 of the KP Act, 1963.
13.8. Thus, again there was no reason for the Assistant
Commissioner to have referred to witnesses coming
forward or not to give evidence or otherwise unless
the order has been passed under Clause (b) of
Section 55 and as indicated supra the order does
not indicate as to whether it has been passed under
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17236
HC-KAR
Section 55(a) or 55(b) i.e., only for that limited
extent that there is an infirmity in the order
requiring this Court to intercede.
14. Answer to point No.5: What order?
14.1. In view of the findings above, the impugned order
not disclosing whether it is passed under Clause (a)
or Clause (b) of Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963. If it
is an order under Clause (b) of Section 55 of the KP
Act, 1963 the said order not disclosing the
reasonable grounds for believing that such person
is engaged or is about to be engaged in the
commission of offense, or an offence punished
under Chapter XII, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal
Code or in the abatement of any such offence, and
when in the opinion of such officer or witnesses are
not willing to come forward to give evidence in
public, I am of the considered opinion that the
matter would have to be required to be remitted to
the Assistant Commissioner to pass a fresh order
clearly and categorically indicating as to under
which provision it has been passed and the order to
satisfy the requirement of the said provision.
14.2. In that view of the matter, I pass the following;
ORDER
i. The writ petition is partly-allowed.
ii. The order dated 18.09.2025 passed by respondent
No.2 in No.MAGCR (Gadiparu) /18/2025-26 at
Annexure-A is set aside.
iii. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 for the
limited purposes of passing a reasoned order
indicating the provision under which the said order
has been passed by complying with the
requirements thereof, which order shall be passed
within 15 days from the receipt of a copy of this
order."
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17236
HC-KAR
4. In the light of the issue standing covered by the
order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra), I
deem it appropriate to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is partly-allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 05.11.2025 passed by
respondent No.2 -- the Assistant Commissioner-
cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chikodi Sub-
Division, Chikodi, bearing No. MAG/CR-
14/Gadiparu/2025-26, issued under Sections 55
and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, in so
far as it concerns the petitioner, as produced at
Annexure-C, stands quashed.
iii. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 for the
limited purposes of passing a reasoned order
indicating the provision under which the said
order has been passed by complying with the
requirements thereof, which order shall be passed
within 15 days from the receipt of a copy of this
order.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
AC
CT:ANB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 180
