[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mahesh vs The Deputy Commissioner on 23 February, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1769
WP No. 200316 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.200316 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
MAHESH S/O GOVINDA
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O SARJAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584122.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.K.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
Digitally signed 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
by VARSHA N AND MAGISTRATE, RAICHUR
RASALKAR
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
RAICHUR, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SUB-DIVISION RAICHUR,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
YEPALLADDINI POLICE STATION,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1769
WP No. 200316 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN FILE NO
REV/MAG/11/2025 DATED 30.12.2025 AND PASSED AN ORDER
TO REMOVE THE PETITIONER FROM RAICHUR DISTRICT TO
HANNUR VILLAGE OF CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT VIDE
ANNEXURE-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent-State.
2. Petitioner is a student studying in three year
Law course in third semester at Raichur Law College.
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 without conducting proper
enquiry registered criminal cases in Crime No.0046/2022
and Crime No.0006/2025 on different occasions against
the petitioner for several offences. Since the matter was of
a civil in nature, petitioner also lodged a complaint against
one Yellappa against whom the respondent police
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1769
HC-KAR
authorities registered a case on the basis of the complaint
lodged by the petitioner. The matter pertained to a civil
dispute of agricultural land. The petitioner was externed
by Order dated 30.12.2025 in File No.REV/MAG/11/2025
from 30.12.2025 to 29.03.2026 by the impugned order.
3. It is the vehement contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities
have not followed the procedure as contemplated in the
Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act), more
specifically, Sections 55, 56 and 58 of the Act, while taking
the drastic step of externing the petitioner from Raichur
District to Hannur of Chamrajnagar District. Therefore, the
procedure as contemplated under the Karnataka Police Act
has not been followed. The petitioner being a law student
has been put to severe difficulties of attending the classes
and taking up the examination. Though he was permitted
by virtue of an interim order to take up the examination,
he is put to severe difficulties for non-following of the
procedure by the respondent authorities. Under the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1769
HC-KAR
circumstances, he seeks to quash the impugned order of
externment.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate sustains the impugned order contending that the
procedure of law has been followed under section 55(a)
and (b) of the Act and the relevant procedure under
sections 56 and 58 of the Act. There is no flaw or illegality.
Based on the criminal cases registered and there being a
threat of breach of peace and tranquility, petitioner has
been externed. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this
petition. In fact, learned Additional Government Advocate
contends that reasons are forthcoming in the order of
externment and if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved on the
merits of the matter, then he would have to challenge the
said order by filing an appeal as contemplated under
Section 59 of the Act, rather than approaching this Court
in the writ jurisdiction. Therefore, he contends that the
present petition is not maintainable. The petition deserves
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1769
HC-KAR
to be dismissed and the petitioner can avail the appeal
remedy provided under the Act.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Additional Government Advocate for the
respondents.
6. What requires to be seen in the present case on
hand is whether the respondents have followed the
procedure contemplated under the Act and whether there
is any violation of fundamental rights by the respondent
authorities in ordering externment against the petitioner.
It would be relevant to extract the provisions of Section
55(a) and (b) so also Section 58 of the Act. Section 55 (a)
and (b) of the Act reads as under:
"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
Commissionerate, 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.-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1769
HC-KAR
(a) that the movements or acts of any person are
causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm
to person or property; or
(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) xxx "
Section 58 of the Act reads as under:
"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
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1769
HC-KAR
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
enquiry, it shall be lawful for the officer or authority
to proceed with the inquiry and thereupon such order
as was proposed to be passed against him may be
passed."
7. On careful perusal of these provisions, it is seen
that there is a clear mandate to the authorities to follow
the relevant provisions as contemplated under Sections
55(a) and (b) and 58 of the Act, whereby the authorities
would have to come to a clear opinion as to why the
petitioner requires to be externed. Once such an opinion is
formed, the respondents would have to form an opinion as
to the willingness of the witnesses to come forward in
public to give evidence against the persons sought to be
proceeded for externment which is mandatory. In the
present reasoning of the impugned order, there is no such
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1769
HC-KAR
clear opinion formed by the respondent authorities to
extern the petitioner. Though there is an omnibus
statement made, there is no material placed on record so
also, nothing is placed to show that because of the threat
or perception given to any of the witnesses, they are
apprehensive and that the witnesses are not willing to
come forward to give statement or evidence against the
petitioner.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak
vs. State of Maharashtra [2022 SCC Online SC 99], at
paragraph Nos.6, 13 and 15, has held as follows:
"6. We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. Under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of
the Constitution of India, there is a fundamental
right conferred on the citizens to move freely
throughout the territory of India. In view of clause
(5) of Article 19, State is empowered to make a law
enabling the Imposition of reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of the right conferred by clause (d).
An order of externment passed under provisions of
Section 56 of the 1951 Act imposes a restraint on
the person against whom the order is made from
entering a particular area. Thus, such orders
infringe the fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(d). Hence, the restriction imposed by
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1769
HC-KAR
passing an order of externment must stand the test
of reasonableness.
7. to 12. xxx
13. Considering the nature of the power under
Section 56, the competent authority is not
expected to write a judgment containing elaborate
reasons. However, the competent authority must
record its subjective satisfaction of the existence of
one of the grounds in sub-section (1) of Section 56
on the basis of objective material placed before it.
Though the competent authority is not required to
record reasons on par with a judicial order, when
challenged, the competent authority must be in a
position to show the application of mind. The Court
while testing the order of externment cannot go
into the question of sufficiency of material based on
which the subjective satisfaction has been
recorded. However, the Court can always consider
whether there existed any material on the basis of
which a subjective satisfaction could have been
recorded. The Court can interfere when either there
is no material or the relevant material has not been
considered. The Court cannot interfere because
there is a possibility of another view being taken.
As in the case of any other administrative order,
the judicial review permissible on the grounds of
mala fide, unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
14. xxx
15. As the order impugned takes away
fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the
reasonableness contemplated by clause (5) of
Article Constitution of India, it must stand the test
of 19. Considering the bare facts on record, the
said order shows non-application of mind and
smacks of arbitrariness. Therefore, it becomes
vulnerable. The order cannot be sustained in law."
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1769
HC-KAR
9. Under the circumstances, having gone through
the materials and the impugned order, this Court is of the
opinion that the petitioner has made out a good ground to
consider his case favourably and I am of the opinion that
the respondents though have made some omnibus
statement cannot be taken as a specific statement as
contemplated under Section 55(b) of the Act and on
enquiry, learned Additional Government Advocate is not
able to point out any such material forthcoming in the
report of the respondent authorities to pinpoint and show
that the witnesses are not coming forward to give
evidence against the petitioner in view of threat or in view
of the threat to the witnesses who are unwilling to come to
give evidence, the petitioner has been acquitted in several
cases.
10. Under such circumstances, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. This petition is allowed.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1769
HC-KAR
ii. The impugned order dated 30.12.2025
bearing No.Revenue/M.A.G./11/2025
passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-
F, is hereby quashed.
iii. Liberty is reserved to the respondent
authorities to initiate proceedings and while
doing so, they have to strictly follow the
mandatory requirements as contemplated
under the Act and also the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak
vs. State of Maharashtra [2022 SCC
Online SC 99].
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
VNR
LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 11
CT:SI
