<p>The High Court of Karnataka has said that in externment proceedings, mere obtaining signature of the person on the order-sheet is not enough to hold that a reasonable opportunity of tendering explanation has been given.</p>.<p>The court said this while quashing the order passed against one Kumar, a resident of Annigeri in Dharwad district.</p>.<p>The petitioner Kumar had challenged the February 13, 2023, order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sub Divisional Magistrate Subdivision, Dharwad district. In this order, Kumar was directed to be away from the jurisdiction of the district from February 16 to August 16.</p>.<p>Kumar claimed that the externment order is against the mandatory provisions of section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act and no opportunity was given to him to file objections and to lead evidence on his behalf. On the other hand, the government argued that the petitioner had not availed the opportunity afforded to him and in fact sought for excusing him.</p>.<p>Justice Anil B Katti that as per section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, hearing has to be given before an order is passed under Sections 54, 55 or 56 of the Act. “The order of externment has serious consequences and keeps away the person so ordered from the family and from his place. The proviso to section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act also entitles the person affected to be represented by a legal practitioner for the purposes of tendering his explanation and examining the witnesses produced by him,” the court said.</p>.<p>The bench also noted that in the show cause notice dated January 21, 2023, there are only general allegations and does not refer to any criminal cases against the petitioner. “In the present case, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, except stating that being convinced the movement of the petitioner are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property by reproducing section 55(a) of the Karnataka Police Act, itself cannot be said as sufficient evidence to have subjective satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner regarding the apprehension without making any enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be legally sustained,” the court said.</p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka has said that in externment proceedings, mere obtaining signature of the person on the order-sheet is not enough to hold that a reasonable opportunity of tendering explanation has been given.</p>.<p>The court said this while quashing the order passed against one Kumar, a resident of Annigeri in Dharwad district.</p>.<p>The petitioner Kumar had challenged the February 13, 2023, order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sub Divisional Magistrate Subdivision, Dharwad district. In this order, Kumar was directed to be away from the jurisdiction of the district from February 16 to August 16.</p>.<p>Kumar claimed that the externment order is against the mandatory provisions of section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act and no opportunity was given to him to file objections and to lead evidence on his behalf. On the other hand, the government argued that the petitioner had not availed the opportunity afforded to him and in fact sought for excusing him.</p>.<p>Justice Anil B Katti that as per section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, hearing has to be given before an order is passed under Sections 54, 55 or 56 of the Act. “The order of externment has serious consequences and keeps away the person so ordered from the family and from his place. The proviso to section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act also entitles the person affected to be represented by a legal practitioner for the purposes of tendering his explanation and examining the witnesses produced by him,” the court said.</p>.<p>The bench also noted that in the show cause notice dated January 21, 2023, there are only general allegations and does not refer to any criminal cases against the petitioner. “In the present case, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, except stating that being convinced the movement of the petitioner are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property by reproducing section 55(a) of the Karnataka Police Act, itself cannot be said as sufficient evidence to have subjective satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner regarding the apprehension without making any enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be legally sustained,” the court said.</p>
