Karnataka High Court
Kartik S/O Yallappa Lesappanavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528
WP No. 103807 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 103807 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
KARTIK S/O. YALLAPPA LESAPPANAVAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: GOUNDI WORKS,
AT DASARA ONI, BAIRIDEVARAKOPPA,
HUBBALLI-580031.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN C. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE COURT,
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580025.
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI 3. POLICE INSPECTOR,
A.P.M.C. NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI M
KANKUPPI
DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580025.
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.07.14 12:37:17
+0530
4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
BANAVARA POLICE STATION, BANAVARA,
DISTRICT: HASSAN-573201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V. MAGADUM, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND BE
PLEASED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/05/2025,
ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER (LAW AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528
WP No. 103807 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORDER) AND HON'BLE SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE COURT,
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD IN BEARING CASE NO.KRA.SI.H.P./V KAADA/
COP/HU-DHA/GADIPARU/29/2025, PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 55
OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963, THE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PRODUCED HERE WITH ANNEXURE-B, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned AGA for the respondents-State.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner
against an order of externment passed by respondent No.2
at Annexure-B.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that, respondent No.2 passed an order of
externment on the ground that the petitioner is involved in
several cases detrimental to public order, the police have
kept a watch over him and his activities and having collected
all necessary information and have come to the conclusion
that there is apprehension that the petitioner may engage in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528
HC-KAR
anti social activities, and in order to maintain peace and
tranquility and to restrain the petitioner from committing any
further illegal activity, order of externment is passed by
respondent No.2.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the impugned order of externment passed by
respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of
natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside and
quashed on the sole ground that no notice was served on the
petitioner so also no opportunity was given to the petitioner
to engage a counsel, defend his case, adduce evidence and
examine witnesses in support of his case against the
allegations or externment so sought to be made by
respondent No.2. Learned counsel further contends that
Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act', for short) has not been followed in its true
letter and spirit and thereby there is clear violation of the
procedure contemplated under the Act. It is further
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528
HC-KAR
respondent No.2 has contradicted himself, as 2 cases are
pending against the petitioner and he is involved in several
offences. It is contended that the petitioner is a goundi
labour and is maintaining his family from out of the amount
earned by the labour work. Therefore, the petitioner would
be put to severe hardship and inconvenience due to
externment order passed by respondent No.2. On these
grounds, he seeks to quash the impugned order passed by
the 2nd respondent.
5. Per contra, learned AGA Sri. Sharad V. Magadum
sustains the impugned order and contends that the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
may not be correct, as notice is issued in advance to the
petitioner. On 20.05.2025, the matter was taken up. The
petitioner appeared and since he has not given any reply and
not adduced any evidence, respondent No.2 proceeded
further to pass orders. Therefore, the procedure as
contemplated in the Act is followed. On these grounds, he
seeks for dismissal of the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528
HC-KAR
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondent-State.
7. The procedure contemplated under Section 58 of
the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, is as under:
"58. Hearing to be given before an order is passed
under section 54, 55 or 56.--(1) Before an order
under sections 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 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528
HC-KAR
attendance of any person against whom any order is
proposed to be made under sections 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."
8. On a careful reading of this provision, it is
apparently clear that, before passing any order under the
provisions of Sections 54, 55 or 56 of the Act, it is necessary
that the authorized officer shall inform the person in writing the
general nature of material allegations against him providing
reasonable opportunity of tendering explanation and if such
application for examination of witnesses is so made, the same
shall be considered unless for the reasons to be recorded in
writing. So also the provisions contemplates that the petitioner
shall be entitled to appear before the Officer by engaging a
legal practitioner to tender his explanation and examine
witnesses if he so desires.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528
HC-KAR
9. In the present case, opportunity was not granted.
On the very same day, impugned order is passed thereby
denying the basic opportunity and rights of the petitioner as
contemplated under the provisions of Section 58 of the Act and
principles of natural justice requires to be followed either way.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Chandrakanth Shankar Vaddar V State Of Karnataka And
Others1 which has relied upon another Co-ordinate Bench's
judgment in the case of Madhusudhan v. State of
Karnataka2. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for
the petitioner that there is procedural lapse while passing the
impugned order. Under the circumstances, this petition
deserves to be allowed.
11. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
Writ Petition No.102870/2024, DD on 25.06.2024
AIR ONLINE 2023 KAR 168
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8528
HC-KAR
ii. The impugned order dated 20.05.2025 bearing
No.¹JZï¦/«PÁzÀ/¹N¦/ºÀÄ-zsÁ/UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ/29/2025 passed by
respondent No.2 at Annexure-B is quashed.
iii. Respondent No.1 is at liberty to initiate appropriate
proceedings by following the mandatory provisions
prescribed under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police
Act, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
gab
CT-MCK
