- 1 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 17

TH

DAY OF JUNE, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100386 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

MUZAMMIL S/O MOHAMMEDSHARIF ATTAR,

AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,

R/O. H.NO.2362, AZADGALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

- APPELLANT

(BY SRI. ANWARALI D. NADAF, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA,

BENGALURU-560001.

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (L AND O),

OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,

BEHIND LINGARAJ COLLEGE, COLLEGE ROAD,

BELAGAVI-590001.

3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

GRAMEEN POLICE STATION,

BAGALKOTE-587101.

- RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN W.P. NO. 104739/2026 DATED

11.06.2026 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION

THEREBY ALLOWING ALL THE PRAYERS SOUGHT IN THE WRIT

PETITION & ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ,

THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

AND

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)

The present writ appeal is filed by the person ext erned

who had challenged the order of externment dated

04.06.2026 in the writ proceedings.

2. In terms of the order of externment dated 04.06. 2026

the authority concerned in exercise of power under Section

56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short ‘K.P. Act’)

has passed the order whereby the petitioner was ext erned

for a period of six months between 04.06.2026 to

03.12.2026 with a restriction on his entry in Belagavi District

and externed to Bagalkot District. Further permiss ion was

granted to enter the territorial limits of Courts where pending

proceedings relating to the petitioner were being heard.

3. The order of externment refers to the cases pend ing

against the petitioner which were taken note of. R elevant

extract of the order of externment referring to the cases

- 3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

pending against the petitioner and are found in the table

which is a part of the order of externment. The said table is

extracted as below.

¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É:-

¦üAiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ¥Éǰøï E£Àì¥ÉPÀÖgï ªÀiÁPÉÃðmï ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ

JzÀgÀÄUÁgÀ ªÀÄÄd«Ää¯ï ªÀĺÀäzÀ±ÀjÃ¥sÀ CvÁÛgÀ, ¸Á: ªÀÄ£É £ÀA-2362, DeÁzÀUÀ°è ¨É¼ÀUÁ« EªÀgÀ

«gÀÄzÀÞ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥Éǰøï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1963 PÀ®A 56 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÀæªÀÄPÉÊPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ «£ÀAw¹ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ-3

gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è J.¹.¦ ªÀiÁPÉÃðmï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß

¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°èAiÀÄ CA±ÀUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¸À¯ÁzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À

¥Àj²Ã®£ÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqɬĸÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ,

«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è F PɼÀPÁt¹zÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ.

1. ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ¥Éǰøï E£Àì¥ÉPÀÖgï ªÀiÁPÉÃðmï ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁPÉÃðmï

¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ eÁ.£ÀA:895/2026 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 11/05/2026 gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥Éǰøï

DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ªÀiÁPÉÃðmï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ,

CzÀgÀ°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ªÀÄÄd«Ää¯ï ªÀĺÀäzÀ±ÀjÃ¥sÀ CvÁÛgÀ, ¸Á: ªÀÄ£É £ÀA-2362,

DeÁzÀUÀ°è ¨É¼ÀUÁ« gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸À£ï 2014 jAzÀ ¨É¼ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ ±ÁAw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ

¸ÀĪÀåªÀ¸ÉÜUÉ zsÀPÉÌ vÀgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ M§â ªÀÄÄRå ªÀåQÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ

dÆeÁlªÉA§ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ ¦qÀUÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ£ÁßV ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ«ÄäAzÀ §qÀ

PÀÄlÄA§UÀ¼ÀÄ DyðPÀªÁV £ÉªÀÄä¢ PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀÄ

¸ÀªÀiÁdWÁvÀÄPÀ ZÀlĪÀnPÉUÀ¼À°è vÉÆqÀVPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è zÉÆA© ªÀiÁr¸ÀĪÀ

GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ MAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁdªÀ£ÀÄß GzÉæÃQ¸ÀĪÀ ¥ÉÇøÀÖ£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ eÁ®vÁtzÀ°è ºÀj©lÄÖ

¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ±ÁAvÀvÁ ¨sÀAUÀ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ ºÀÄ£ÁßgÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÀºÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁV ¸ÀªÀiÁd

PÀAlPÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ £ÉªÀÄä¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÀÈvÀåzÀ°è

vÉÆqÀV ¨É¼ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀzÀ d£ÀgÀ°è C±ÁAw ªÁvÁªÀgÀt ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀ

ZÀlĪÀnPÉUÀ½AzÁV ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ ¨sÀAiÀÄ©üÃwAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà fêÀ£À £ÀqɬĸÀĪÀ C¤ªÁAiÀÄð

¥Àj¹Üw GAmÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É F ªÀgÉUÉ ¨É¼ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ««zsÀ ¥Éǰøï

oÁuÉUÀ¼À°è F PɼÀPÁt¹zÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR°¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

C

£ÀA

C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¸ÀASÉå

ºÁUÀÆ PÀ®A

¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¸ÁgÁA±À

¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¸ÀzsÀåzÀ

ºÀAvÀ

1. ¨É¼ÀUÁ« UÁæ«ÄÃt

¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ

C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¸ÀASÉå:

228/2014 P˨A: 87

Pɦ PÁAiÉÄÝ

¢£ÁAPÀ: 09/11/2014 gÀAzÀÄ 1700

UÀAmÉUÉ DgÉÆæ £ÀA:1 ªÀÄÄeÁ«Ä¯ï

±ÀjÃ¥ï CvÁÛgÀ ¸Á:DeÁzÀUÀ®zÀ°è

¨É¼ÀUÁ« ºÁUÀÆ E£ÀÄß½zÀ 6 d£À

DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ

¸ÁªÀUÁAªÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ ¨É£ÀPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ

CAUÀr PÁ¯ÉÃd JzÀÄjUÉ PÉ.ºÉZï.©

ªÀiÁ£Àå

£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ

¹.¹.£ÀA:13/2015

£ÉÃzÀÝgÀ PɼÀUÉ

«ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqÉzÀÄ

07/04/2015 gÀAzÀÄ

²PÉëAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

- 4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

ºÀwÛgÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è vÀªÀÄä

¸ÀéAvÀ ¥ÁAiÉÄÝUÉÆøÀÌgÀ E¹àÃl J¯ÉUÀ¼À

ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀtºÀaÑ CAzÀgÀ ¨ÁºÀgÀ

CA§ÄªÀ dÄUÁgÀ DlªÀ£ÀÄß

DqÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ¹PÀÌ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ

2. ªÀiÁPÉðmï ¥Éǰøï

oÁuÉ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ

¸ÀASÉå:152/2019

PÀ®A 87 Pɦ PÁAiÉÄÝ

¢£ÁAPÀ: 20-11-2019 gÀAzÀÄ 2050

UÀAmÉUÉ ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆæ ªÀÄÄeÁ«Ä¯ï

ªÀĺÀäzÀ±ÀjÃ¥ï CvÁÛgÀ ºÁUÀÆ

E£ÀÄß½zÀ 7 d£À DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ

PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀzÀ

E£ÁªÀÄzÁgÀ ZÁ¼À RįÁèeÁUÉAiÀÄ°è

¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è zÀÄAqÀUÉ

PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀéAvÀ ¯Á¨sÀPÁÌV

E¹àÃl J¯ÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀt ºÀaÑ

CAzÀgÀ ¨ÁºÀgÀ CA§ÄªÀ dÄUÁgÀ

DlªÀ£ÀÄß DqÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ¹PÀÌ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ

ªÀiÁ£Àå

£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ

¹.¹.£ÀA:1023/2019

£ÉÃzÀÝgÀ PɼÀUÉ

«ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqÉzÀÄ

13/08/2022 gÀAzÀÄ

²PÉëAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

3. ªÀiÁPÉðmï ¥Éǰøï

oÁuÉ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ

¸ÀASÉå:80/2021

PÀ®A: 160 L¦¹

¢£ÁAPÀ: 04-07-2021 gÀAzÀÄ

DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ 1)ªÀÄÄd«Ä¯ï ±ÀjÃ¥sÀ

CvÁÛgÀ ºÁUÀÆ 2) gÀ¦üÃPï ¸ÀªÀÄzï

ªÀÄįÁè ¸Á :PÀ¸Á¬Ä UÀ°è ¨É¼ÀUÁ«

EªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆà PÁgÀtPÁÌV 1730

UÀAmÉUÉ DeÁzÀUÀ°è §æºÀä°AUÀUÀÄr

ºÀwÛgÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À°è

M§âjUÉƧâgÀÄ vÀAmÉ ªÀiÁr

¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ±ÁAw ¨sÀAUÀ

ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ¹PÀÌ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ.

ªÀiÁ£Àå

£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ

¹.¹.£ÀA:474/2021

£ÉÃzÀÝgÀ PɼÀUÉ

«ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqÉzÀÄ

¢£ÁAPÀ:06/08/2021

gÀAzÀÄ

²PÉëAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

4. ªÀiÁPÉðmï ¥Éǰøï

oÁuÉ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¸ÀASÉå:

65/2025 P˨A.192

©J£ïJ¸ï 2023

¢£ÁAPÀ :25.03.2025 gÀAzÀÄ

DgÉÆæ ªÀÄÄd«Ä¯ï ªÀĺÀäzÀ±ÀjÃ¥sÀ

CvÁÛgÀ FvÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß

Muzammilattar03 E£Áì÷ÖUÁæªÀÄ

CPËAlzÀ°è OgÀAUÀeÉç£À ¥ÉÇÃmÉÆ

ºÁQ CzÀgÀ°è

Baap hai

tumhare bhulna mat

(¤ªÀÄä

vÀAzÉ EªÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄgÉAiÉÆÃPÉ

ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃr) CAvÁ PÁå¥ÀÖ£ï ºÁQ

CzÀgÀ PɼÀUÉ n¥ÀÅà ¸ÀįÁÛ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ

ºÀÄ°AiÀÄ ¥sÉÇÃmÉÆ ºÁQ CzÀPÉÌ »A¢

¨sÁµÉAiÀÄ CVߥÀvÀ ZÀ®£ÀavÀæzÀ

“eÁé¯Á¹ ZÀ®w ºÉÊ DSÉÆêÉÄà f¸ÉÌ

©ü ¢¯ï ¸É vÉÃgÁ £ÁªÀÄ ºÉÊ”

¥ÀgÀªÁºÀPÁå G¸ÁÌ DgÀA¨sÀ PÉʸÁ ºÉÊ

ªÀiÁ£Àå

£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ

¹.¹.£ÀA§gÀ

07/2026 £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ

PɼÀUÉ

«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÄÝ,

ªÀÄÄA¢£À «ZÁgÀuÉ

¢£ÁAPÀ:10/08/2026

gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ

ºÁdgÁw PÀÄjvÀÄ

EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

- 5 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

Ogï PÉʸÁ ¥Àj£ÁªÀÄ ºÉÊ..” JA§

ºÁr£À vÀÆtÄPÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¹ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ

eÁ®vÁtUÀ¼À°è ºÀj©lÄÖ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ

±ÁAvÀvÁ ¨sÀAUÀ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ ºÀÄ£ÁßgÀ

ªÀiÁrzÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ.

5. ªÀiÁPÉðmï ¥Éǰøï

oÁuÉ ¦.J.Dgï

£ÀA:22/2023

PÀ®A:107 ¹.Dgï.¦.¹

JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀ£ÀÄ gËr²Ãlgï EzÀÄÝ,

ªÀÄÄA§gÀĪÀ gÁdå «zsÁ£À ¸À¨sÉ

ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ PÁ®PÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ

¸ÀAeÉÕAiÀÄ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÁzsÀåvÉ

EgÀĪÀzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÝjAzÀ

ªÀÄÄAeÁUÀÈvÁ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊPÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ:04/03/2023

gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÁAqÀ NªÀgï

DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

6. ªÀiÁPÉðmï ¥Éǰøï

oÁuÉ

¦.J.Dgï.£ÀA:16/2025

P˨A:126

©.J£ï.J¸ï.J¸ï-

2023

JzÀÄgÀÄUÁgÀ£ÀÄ gËr²Ãlgï EzÀÄÝ,

ªÀÄÄA§gÀĪÀ §¸ÀªÉñÀégÀ dAiÀÄAw,

²ªÁf dAiÀÄAw, §QæÃzÀ, ªÉƺÀgÀªÀiï,

UÀuÉñÀZÀvÀÄyð, PÀ£ÁðlPÀgÁeÉÆåÃvÀìªÀ

PÁ®PÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀAeÉÕAiÀÄ

C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÁzsÀåvÉ EgÀĪÀzÀÄ

PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄÄAeÁUÀÈvÁ

PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊPÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ:09/05/2026

gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÁAqÀ NªÀgï

DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

4. Learned Single Judge had rejected the writ petit ion

observing that an efficacious remedy is available u/S 59 of

the K.P. Act and accordingly had relegated the petitioner to

avail such statutory remedy and without entering in to the

merits has rejected the writ petition. The observations made

by the learned Single Judge at paragraph Nos. 2 to 5 reads

as hereunder:

2. The petitioner's counsel reiterating the grounds has tried to

pursued this Court demonstrating that even if allegations and

report are accepted in entirety, no case is made ou t under

Section 56 of K.P.Act, 1963.

- 6 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate has raise d the

primary objection contending that petitioner was heard and he

has contested the proceedings and therefore, he has to be

relegated to avail a remedy under Section 59 of K.P.Act, 1963.

4. Though this Court grants indulgence where extern ment

orders, being drastic measures, are passed in gross violation of

the principles of natural justice, it is not a fit case to grant such

indulgence since the petitioner was afforded an opp ortunity

and the order was passed by the authority only after hearing

the petitioner. The petitioner's contention that the order is

palpably erroneous cannot be a ground to entertain the

petition when there is an efficacious remedy under Section 59

of the K.P. Act, 1963. Therefore, this is a fit case to relegate

petitioner to avail a remedy of an appeal.

5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition stands d ismissed

reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy under

Section 59 of the K.P.Act, 1963.”

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit t hat

the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the writ

petition in light of order of externment affecting his

fundamental right including the right under Article 21 of the

Constitution and the Court ought not to have relegated the

petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy.

7. It is submitted that the order of externment was an

order passed without jurisdiction insofar as the ca ses

- 7 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

involving the petitioner involve offences under the provisions

of IPC and Cr.P.C which do not fall within the categories of

cases stipulated under Section 56 of the K.P. Act and it is

contended that the order is one without jurisdictio n and

accordingly the restriction regarding entertaining a writ

petition would not be applicable. It is further submitted that

the power vested in Article 226 of the Constitution could be

exercised while waiving of the statutory remedy if exceptions

made out for exercise of writ jurisdiction are made out which

would include entertaining a writ petition when an order is

passed without jurisdiction.

8. Learned Government Advocate on the other hand

would contend that the learned Single Judge has mer ely

relegated the petitioner to avail of the remedy of appeal u/S

59 of the K.P. Act and if that were to be so the relegation of

the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy was correct

course of action and no interference is called at this stage.

Further it is submitted that the petitioner admittedly is a

rowdy sheeter and Court ought not to exercise any discretion

- 8 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

in entertaining the present writ appeal while relegating the

petitioner to avail of statutory remedy.

9. Heard both sides.

10. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that in the writ petition his relief was not only for

setting aside order of externment but for setting aside order

whereby the petitioner was included in the Rowdy Sh eeter

Register. It is however submitted that the challenge to his

inclusion in the Rowdy Sheeter Register is not being pressed

in the present proceedings. In the light of the sa me the

present writ appeal is being taken up only insofar as

challenge of the petitioner as regards the order of

externment.

11. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the Writ Court in exercise of power

under Article 226 of the Constitution could

entertain the writ petition even despite

availability of statutory remedy u/S K.P. Act?

- 9 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

(ii) Whether the order of externment passed is one

without jurisdiction and could be construed to be

an exception whereby there could be waiver of

statutory remedy and entertaining of a writ

petition?

(iii) Whether the order of externment would fall within

the categories of cases contemplated u/S 56 (A

to H) of the K.P. Act?

12. It must be noticed that the order of externment passed

u/S 56 of the K.P. Act is appealable in terms of Sec. 59 of

the K.P. Act. Insofar as such existence of appellate remedy

the same is not in dispute. This Court while considering the

question of existence of alternative remedy vide or der in

reference in Criminal Petition No. 200012/2023 and

connected matters, in the context of order passed u/S 56 of

the K.P. Act had in its order dated 25.07.2025 considered a

reference placed before the Division Bench by orders of the

Hon’ble Chief Justice dated 05.04.2023. The Refere nce

Court while referring to the provisions u/S 59 of the K.P. Act

has adverted to the existence of alternative remedy by way

- 10 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

of a writ petition in paragraph no. 13 onwards. The relevant

extract of the order in Reference at paragraph nos.13 to 15

reads as follows:

“13. Insofar as remedy against an order of externme nt

by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,

it is clear that if the externment order may have the effect of

deprivation of liberty by a procedure contrary to law, in such

event, remedy of writ proceedings could be had reco urse to.

Further, even where an alternative remedy is availa ble,

exceptions have been carved out for entertaining a writ

petition and among such exceptions is a category of cases

where writ petitions are filed for enforcement of fundamental

rights.

14. Though Section 60 of the Karnataka Police Act provides for

finality of orders, it is a settled position that even if an order is

stated to be final, the remedy of judicial review by resort to

Article 226 of the Constitution remains untouched. The Apex

Court in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and

Another, has held that even when a statute declares a

decision to be final, the High Court's power under Article 226

of Constitution remains intact and that the judicial review is

part of the rule of law and no statute can completely bar it.

The relevant observations are as follows:

"8. It was urged that that cannot be so in electio n

matters because of Section 105 of the Representation of

the People Act of 1951 (Act 43 of 1951), a section which

was not considered in the earlier case. It runs thus:

- 11 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

"Every order of the tribunal made under this Act

shall be final and conclusive."

It was argued that neither the High Court nor the

Supreme Court can itself transgress the law in trying to

set right what it considers is an error of law on the part

of the court or tribunal whose records are under

consideration. It was submitted that the legislatur e

intended the decisions of these tribunals to be final on

all matters, whether of fact or of law, accordingly, they

cannot be said to commit an error of law when, acting

within the ambit of their jurisdiction, they decide and lay

down what the law is, for in that sphere their decisions

are absolute, as absolute as the decisions of the

Supreme Court in its own sphere. Therefore, it was said,

the only question that is left open for examination under

Article 226 in the case of an Election Tribunal is whether

it acted within the scope of its jurisdiction.

9. But this, also, is no longer open to question.

The point has been decided by three Constitution

Benches of this Court. In Hari Vishnu v. Ahmad Ishaque

[AIR 1955 SC 233, 249] the effect of Section 105 of the

Representation of the People Act was not considered ,

but the Court laid down in general terms that the

jurisdiction under Article 226 having been conferred by

the Constitution, limitations cannot be placed on i t

except by the Constitution itself: see pages 238 an d

242. Section 105 was, however, considered in Durga

Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh [AIR 1954 SC 520,

522] and it was held that that section cannot cut down

or affect the overriding powers of this Court under

- 12 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

Article 136. The same rule was applied to Article 226 in

Raj Krushna Bose v. Binod Kanungo [(1954) SCR 913,

918] and it was decided that Section 105 cannot tak e

away or whittle down the powers of the High Court

under Article 226. Following those decisions we hold that

the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is not

taken away or curtailed by Section 105.

10. The jurisdiction which Articles 226 and 136

confer entitles the High Courts and this Court to

examine the decisions of all tribunals to see wheth er

they have acted illegally. That jurisdiction cannot be

taken away by a legislative device that purports to

confer power on a tribunal to act illegally by enacting a

statute that its illegal acts shall become legal th e

moment the tribunal chooses to say they are legal. The

legality of an act or conclusion is something that exists

outside and apart from the decision of an inferior

tribunal. It is a part of the law of the land which cannot

be finally determined or altered by any tribunal of

limited jurisdiction. The High Courts and the Supreme

Court alone can determine what the law of the land is

vis-a-vis all other courts and tribunals and they alone

can pronounce with authority and finality on what i s

legal and what is not. All that an inferior tribunal can do

is to reach a tentative conclusion which is subject to

review under Articles 226 and 136. Therefore, the

jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 with

that of the Supreme Court above them remains to its

fullest extent despite Section 105."

- 13 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

15. As the order of externment may impinge upon

liberty of an individual, it is always open to challenge the

validity of such order by contending violation of Article 21 of

the Constitution of India by taking recourse to an appropriate

writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. No doub t, Writ

Petition would be maintainable, albeit whether the Court would

entertain the petition or direct the petitioner to avail of

substantive remedy under the statute is a matter wi thin the

judicial discretion of the Court before which a Writ Petition is

filed.”

13. The Division Bench after a detailed considerati on has

observed that even where alternative remedy is avai lable,

externment has been carved out entertaining a writ petition

and such exceptions are recognized while referring to the

order of the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool

Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998 [8]

SCC 1).

14. The Division Bench at paragraph no. 15 in the o rder of

reference has observed that as an order of externment may

impinge upon liberty of an individual, it is always open to

challenge the validity of such order by contending violation

of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by taking recourse

to Article 226 of the Constitution. But observed that whether

- 14 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

the Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would entertain the

petition or direct the petitioner to avail remedy under the

statute, is a matter within judicial discretion of the Court and

has referred to observation made by the Apex Court in M/s

Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation

Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Ors. (2023 SCC

Online SC 95). Thus it is clear that there is no absolute bar

for entertaining of writ petition. However whether a writ

petition would be entertained is a matter left to the judicial

discretion of this Court. In the case of Whirlpool

Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks , the exception

for entertaining a writ petition have been detailed . The

exceptions include wherein enforcement of fundament al

rights are sought or where proceedings are wholly w ithout

jurisdiction.

The observation at paragraph nos. 13 to 15 reads as

follows:

13. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended t hat

since suo motu action under Section 56(4) could be ta ken

only by the High Court and not by the Registrar, the notice

- 15 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

issued to the appellant was wholly without jurisdiction and,

therefore, a writ petition even at that stage was

maintainable. The appellant, in these circumstance s, was

not obliged to wait for the Registrar to complete t he

proceedings as any further order passed by the Regi strar

would also have been without jurisdiction.

14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226

of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by

any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be

exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the

nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo

warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the

Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution

but also for “any other purpose”.

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court,

having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to

entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High

Court was imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of

which is that if an effective and efficacious remed y is

available, the High Court would not normally exerci se its

jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been

consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at

least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition

has been filed for the enforcement of any of the

Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violat ion of

the principle of natural justice or where the order or

proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an

Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this

- 16 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we

would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of

the constitutional law as they still hold the field.”

15. In the present case the counsel for the petitioner has

contended that the order is one without jurisdiction as the

order of externment refers to the cases against the petitioner

and the provisions of law under which such cases have been

filed do not fall within the categories of cases contemplated

u/S 56 (a to h) of the K.P. Act.

16. A perusal of the cases made out against the pet itioner

is in terms of the table extracted supra. The cases against

the petitioner relate to offence u/S 87 of the K.P. Act insofar

as the case at Sl. Nos.1 and 2 of the table extracted supra.

Such offence does not fall within the offences contemplated

under Section 56 of the K.P. Act.

17. Insofar as the cases u/S 160 of the IPC, at sl. No. 3 of

the table such case does not fall within the catego ry of

offence stipulated at 56(a) of the K.P. Act. Insofar as the

offence mentioned in the case at sl. No. 4 relating to Sec.

192 of the BNS the said case would also not fall in the

- 17 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

category of Sec. 56 (a to h) and even if the corresponding

Section of IPC is taken, Sec. 192 of BNS would correspond to

Sec. 153 of IPC and such offence falls in Chapter VIII of the

IPC. Such offence does not fall within the categor y of

offence u/S 56 (a) of the K.P. Act.

18. Insofar as the offence at sl. No. 5, the offence made

out is 107 of Cr.P.C. Such offence is not enumerat ed in

Sec.56 (a to h) of the K.P. Act. Insofar as case at sl. No. 6

the offence made out is 126 of BNSS which correspon d to

Sec.107 Cr.P.C. Even as regards such offence we find that

such offence does not fall within the category of S ection

56 (a to h) of the K.P. Act.

19. Learned Government Advocate is not in a positio n to

controvert the contention of the petitioner that the offences

mentioned in the table which have been relied upon by the

authority in passing the externment order do not fall within

the category of Sec. 56 (a to h) of the K.P. Act.

20. Learned Government Advocate submits that the

petitioner is involved in number of offences, details of which

- 18 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

are mentioned in the table and has been convicted in three

of the cases at sl. Nos. 1 to 3 of the table extracted above.

However that by itself will not clear the jurisdictional defect.

An order u/S 56 of the K.P. Act must relate to the

categories of the offences mentioned u/S 56 (a to h) of the

K.P. Act in the absence of which the special power conferred

for externment which in effect amount to curtailmen t of

fundamental right including Article 21 of the Const itution

must be in accordance with the provisions of law whereby a

restriction is sought to be placed. No order of externment

could be passed de hors u/S 56 (a to h) of the K.P. Act.

21. Clearly the order passed is one without jurisdi ction.

Accordingly we find that when an order is without jurisdiction

the Court could entertain a writ petition and proce ed to

adjudicate taking note the violation of fundamental right.

Noticing the order is one without jurisdiction the writ petition

is maintainable and we deem it proper to entertain the

petition. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge

is set aside.

- 19 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC-D:7846-DB

WA No. 100386 of 2026

22. We have also gone into the correctness of the o rder

impugned taking note that there would be undue dela y and

no purpose is served by remanding the matter to the learned

Single Judge in the light of clear observation that the order

passed is one without jurisdiction. Accordingly the impugned

order at Annexure-A is set aside and the writ appea l is

disposed of in terms of the discussion made above a nd the

appellant is directed to be released forthwith. The points for

consideration raised are answered accordingly.

Needless to state power of the authority to take f resh

action as per law is reserved.

Sd/-

(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(K.G.SHANTHI)

JUDGE

BVV

CT:VP

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11