[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Santosh @ Aramog S/O Govind Divatagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 May, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6498
WP No. 103758 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MAY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.103758 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SRI SANTOSH @ ARAMOG S/O GOVIND DIVATAGI,
AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O PARVATI NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
TQ./DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
(R/BY MOTHER SMT.SWATI W/O GOVINDA DIVATAGI,
AGE.40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O PARVATI NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ROHIT NAGESH LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARIAT,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE (LAW AND ORDER)
CHANDRASHEKAR
AND SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI BELAGAVI CITY, COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.05.05 16:30:29
+0545
3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
UDYAMBAG POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI CITY, BELAGAVI-590016.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI MAY KINDLY BE ISSUED AND THE HON'BLE
COURT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
BEARING NO.SO:MAG/G.PA/06/COP/2026 DATED 10-04-2026 PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE B, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6498
WP No. 103758 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Rohit Nagesh Latur, learned counsel for
petitioner, and Smt.Nandini B. Somapur, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3.
2. Challenging order of externment passed by
respondent no.2 on 10.04.2026, as per Annexure-B, under
Section 55 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, "K.P.
Act"), this writ petition is filed.
3. Principal ground of challenge is violation of
principles of natural justice on account of respondents not
furnishing a copy of report and material based on which
proposal for externment was made.
4. Impugned order is also challenged on ground of
absence of any proximate cause for initiation of action and
further that no opinion was formed prior to passing
impugned order regarding petitioner's presence causing
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6498
HC-KAR
obstruction to witnesses deposing against him, in pending
criminal prosecution. On these grounds, learned counsel
seeks to allow writ petition.
5. Petition is opposed. Learned AGA submits that
impugned order has been passed after service of notice and
providing opportunity of hearing and petitioner has
efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 59 of K.P. Act.
Accordingly, she seeks dismissal of petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused
records.
7. At outset, it is seen that prior to passing of
impugned order, petitioner was issued notice and had, in
fact, appeared before respondent no.2. Thus, he has availed
opportunity of hearing.
8. It is also seen that against order at Annexure-B,
an appeal is provided under Section 59 of K.P. Act. In case
of any grievance against impugned order, petitioner has to
exhaust statutory remedies.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6498
HC-KAR
9. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner
submits that an appeal would be filed, but seeks interim
protection till such time.
10. Submission appears reasonable.
11. Considering facts and circumstances, and taking
note of fact that an appeal is provided, writ petition is
disposed of, reserving liberty to petitioner to file an appeal
under Section 59 of K.P. Act.
12. Subject to filing of appeal within four weeks from
today along with an application for interim stay,
respondents are directed not to give effect to impugned
order till consideration of such interim application in appeal.
13. In case appeal is not filed within four weeks as
above, interim arrangement would automatically vacate.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AC,SMM
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12
