Karnataka High Court

Rasulkhan Alias Khalarasul S/O. ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953
                                                        WP No. 103765 of 2025


                  HC-KAR



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                            DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025
                                           BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 103765 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
                 BETWEEN:

                 RASULKHAN @ KHALARASUL
                 S/O. NAZIRAHMED BAGALKOT,
                 AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER,
                 R/O. KULKARNI HAKKAL, GOODSHED ROAD,
                 HUBBALLI, TALUKA: HUBBALLI,
                 DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580020.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                 (BY SRI. D. L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE)

                 AND:

                 1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                      BY SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT,
                      VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

                 2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                      OF POLICE (L & O) AND SPECIAL EXECUTIVE
                      MAGISTRATE, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD,
VIJAYALAKSHMI
                      NAVANAGARA, HUBBALLI-580025, DIST: DHARWAD.
M KANKUPPI

                 3.   THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR-584101.
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
                 4.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
                      SOUTH SUB DIVISION, HUBBALLI-580020.

                 5.   THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
                      TOWN POLICE STATION,
                      HUBBALLI-580020, DIST: DHARWAD.

                 6.   THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                      DEODURGA POLICE STATION,
                      DEODURGA-584111, DIST: RAICHUR.
                                                                ...RESPONDENTS
                 (BY SRI. S.V. MAGADUM, AGA)
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953
                                         WP No. 103765 of 2025


HC-KAR



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR
ORDER OR ANY DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND
SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE IN NO.CHP/VIKADA/COP/HU-
DHA/GADIPARU/37/2025 DATED 20-05-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 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 the 2nd respondent

at Annexure-A.

3. It is the contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner that, respondent No.2 passed an order of

externment on the ground that there are several criminal

cases registered against the petitioner and the petitioner is

involved in several offences. The police have kept a watch

over him and his activities and having collected all necessary

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953

HC-KAR

information and coming to the conclusion that there is

apprehension that the petitioner may engage in antisocial

activities, 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,

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, 1963 (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 also

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953

HC-KAR

contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

2nd respondent has contradicted himself, as the petitioner

was acquitted in two out of 4 cases and only two cases are

pending. Therefore, on these grounds, he contends that the

procedure as contemplated under the Act is not followed and

no opportunity was given.

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that he is an auto rickshaw driver and has a

family and he is maintaining his family from out of the

amount earned by driving auto rickshaw. 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.

6. 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. The petitioner appeared and since he has not

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953

HC-KAR

given any reply and not adduced any evidence, respondent

No.2 has proceeded further to pass orders. Therefore, the

procedure as contemplated is followed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondents-State.

8. 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 attendance of any person against whom any order is

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953

HC-KAR

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."

9. On a careful reading of this provision, it is

apparently clear that, before passing any order under the

provisions of Sections 54, 55, 56 and 57 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 the authority or officer is of opinion that such

application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay. 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:7953

HC-KAR

10. In the present case, opportunity was not granted,

on the very same day order is passed, thereby denying the

basic rights of the petitioner. As contemplated under the

provisions of Section 58 of the Act, principles of natural justice

require to be followed either way.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the

judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

Chandrakanth Shankar Vaddar Vs. State Of Karnataka

And Others1, which has relied upon the judgment of another

co-ordinate Bench 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 will

have to be allowed.

12. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

Writ Petition No.102870/2024, DD on 25.06.2024

AIR ONLINE 2023 KAR 168

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7953

HC-KAR

i. The petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order dated 20.05.2025 bearing No.

CHP/VIKADA/COP/HU-DHA/GADIPARU/37/2025

passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A 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, 1963, in accordance with law.