Sri Rachappa vs The State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 2480 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Rachappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026

                                              -1-
                                                        NC: 2026:KHC:16054
                                                      WP No. 7930 of 2026


                   HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                            BEFORE

                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 7930 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)


                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI RACHAPPA
                   S/O KEMAPALINGANAYAKA.
                   AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
                   R/AT URA BASAPPANA ODDU,
                   MALE MAHADESWARA BETTA VILLAGE,
                   HANURU TALUK,
                   CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571490.
                                                             ...PETITIONER

                   (BY SRI. VEERABHADRA SWAMY H P., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA A      1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                 REPTD.BY ITS SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA
                         DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
                         VIDHANA SOUDHA,
                         AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
                         BENGALURU-560001.

                   2.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
                         AND DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
                         KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION,
                         KOLLEGALA TALUK,
                         CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571440,
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC:16054
                                      WP No. 7930 of 2026


HC-KAR



3.   THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
     CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT,
     CHAMARAJANAGARA-571313.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING
THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2025 IN NO.M.A.G (GA)CR/23/2025
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
II) PASS ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS
THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT
PETITION WITH COST, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                      ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the externment

order dated 24.12.2025 passed by respondent No.2 under

Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short

"the Act") whereby the petitioner has been externed from

Chamarajanagar District to Kalaburagi District for a period

of six months.

NC: 2026:KHC:16054

HC-KAR

2. The brief facts leading to the present petition

are that respondent No.3 submitted a report alleging that

the petitioner had constructed a house illegally within the

jurisdiction of Shri Malemahadeshwara Swamy Kshetra

Development Authority and was illegally storing liquor in

the said house and selling the same to the public at hiked

prices. It was also alleged that the petitioner was using

local youth to assist him in the illegal sale of liquor. Based

on the said report, a criminal case came to be registered

against the petitioner. It is further alleged that there are

three other criminal cases pending against the petitioner.

3. On the basis of the said report, respondent

No.2 initiated proceedings against the petitioner under

Section 55 of the Act in proceedings bearing No.

M.A.G(GA)CR/23/2025. A show cause notice under Section

58 of the Act was issued to the petitioner and the

petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing.

Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order

directing externment of the petitioner from

NC: 2026:KHC:16054

HC-KAR

Chamarajanagar District to Kalaburagi District for a period

of six months.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would contend that the impugned order is illegal and

arbitrary. He would submit that the order is passed solely

on the ground that three criminal cases are pending

against the petitioner under the provisions of the Excise

Act, 1965. Mere pendency of criminal cases, without there

being any material demonstrating that the petitioner's

activities are prejudicial to public order or public safety,

cannot constitute a ground for invoking the drastic power

of externment. He would further contend that the

impugned order does not assign cogent reasons and

therefore the order is not a speaking order. In support of

his contention, reliance is placed on the order passed by a

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.871/2023

DD.2.3.2023.

NC: 2026:KHC:16054

HC-KAR

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government

Advocate would submit that the petitioner is involved in

illegal sale of liquor and that his activities were creating

nuisance and disturbance in the locality. It is contended

that after issuing notice under Section 58 of the Act and

after affording an opportunity of hearing, respondent No.2

has passed the impugned order and therefore the same

does not warrant interference.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the material placed on record.

7. The power of externment conferred under

Section 55 of the Act is an extraordinary measure which

directly affects the fundamental right of a citizen to reside

and move freely. Such power has to be exercised sparingly

and strictly in accordance with the statutory requirements.

8. A careful perusal of the impugned order

indicates that respondent No.2 has primarily relied upon

the fact that three criminal cases are pending against the

NC: 2026:KHC:16054

HC-KAR

petitioner under the provisions of the Excise Act, 1965.

Except referring to the pendency of the said cases and the

report submitted by respondent No.3, the order does not

disclose any material to demonstrate that the presence of

the petitioner in the district is hazardous to public order or

that witnesses are unwilling to come forward to depose

against him due to fear.

9. Mere allegations that the petitioner is illegally

storing or selling liquor would not, by themselves, attract

the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 55 of the

Act. The power of externment under Section 55 of the Act

is an extraordinary preventive measure and can be

invoked only when the competent authority is satisfied

that the movements or acts of a person are causing alarm,

danger, or harm to persons or property, and that

witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence

against such person by reason of apprehension for their

safety.