Karnataka High Court
Aroli Bhimanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2025
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7642
WP No. 203879 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 203879 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SRI AROLI BHIMANNA S/O NAGAPPA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND HIS WIFE,
SMT. M. SUJATA W/O AROLI BHIMANNA,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. MIRZAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR 584140.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
COURT OF DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU- 01.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUM,
SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
RAICHUR, SUB-DIVISION,
DIST. RAICHUR- 584101.
3. THE SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE,
RAICHUR, DIST. RAICHUR- 584101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7642
WP No. 203879 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
RAICHUR SUB-DIVISION, RAICHUR,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR- 584101.
5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT,
INDI SUB-DIVISION, INDI,
TQ INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA 586209.
6. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
YADAPNUR POLICE STATION, RAICHUR,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR- 584140.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, a)
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CASE NO.PÀAzÁAiÀÄ/JA.J.f-UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ/16/2025,
ON THE FILE OF 2ND RESPONDENT ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE RAICHUR.
b) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.11.2025,
PASSED IN CASE NO. PÀAzÁAiÀÄ/JA.J.f-UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ/16/2025 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB
DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE RAICHUR, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. c)
PASS SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7642 WP No. 203879 of 2025 HC-KAR
a) Call for the records in case No. PÀAzÁAiÀÄ/JA.J.f-
UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ/16/2025,, on the file of 2nd respondent- Assistant Commissioner and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raichur.
b) Set aside the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed in case No. PÀAzÁAiÀÄ/JA.J.f- UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ/16/2025, issued by the 2nd respondent- Assistant Commissioner and Sub Divisional Magistrate Raichur, vide Annexure-A.
c) Pass such other relief/s that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records submits that respondent No.2 while passing order of externment dated 06.11.2025 at Annexure-A has not ensured that the provisions of Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, 'K.P.Act') are complied with. He submits that the very show cause notice issued at Annexure-C dated 08.08.2025 is based on the presumption and surmises of petitioner causing disturbance to the public peace and tranquility. He submits that except listing out the cases, which have been filed against the petitioner, no other details are furnished to the petitioner. That though the show case notice refers -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7642 WP No. 203879 of 2025 HC-KAR to a purported report issued by the PSI of Yadapnur Police Station, no such report is enclosed to the show cause notice enabling the petitioner to submit his reply. That the subjective satisfaction should emanate from the records that mere listing of the cases in which the petitioner has been implicated cannot be the ground for passing the order of externment under Section 55 of the K.P.Act. That even order at Annexure-A, does not indicate any such subjective satisfaction except recording the allegations found in the complaints and FIRs filed against the petitioner.
3. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in W.P.No.9760/2023 dated 11.05.2023 in case of Rohith D.R. vs. The State of Karnataka and others, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court under similar facts and circumstances has allowed the writ petition. Hence, learned counsel seeks similar benefit to be extended to the petitioner.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7642 WP No. 203879 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. Heard. Perused the records.
5. Apex Court in the case of Deepak vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 99 at paragraph Nos.6, 13 and 15 of the judgment 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 passing an order of externment must stand the test of reasonableness.
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 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7642 WP No. 203879 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
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."
6. The facts of the present case read in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak (supra) does not indicate that any such application of mind is exercised in the instant case. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the show cause -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7642 WP No. 203879 of 2025 HC-KAR notice refers to a purported report submitted by the PSI of Yadapnur Police Station, but no such report is enclosed. Further, the show cause notice merely enlists the cases, which have been filed against the petitioner. The order impugned at Annexure-A is reiteration of the contents of complaint filed by the petitioner. The only probable reason which has rightly shown by the counsel of the petitioner is traceable to unnumbered paragraph No.2 at page No.9 of the impugned order, which reads as under:
"¸Àzj À AiÀĪÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É 04 ¥ÀPæ g À tÀ UÀ¼£À ÀÄß zÁR°¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÀÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgz ÀÉ ÀÄ ¸Àzj À AiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀvð À £ÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀtÉ EgÀzÃÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É FUÁUÀ¯Éà gËr ¥Àª æ ÀÈwÛAiÀĪÀ¼Àîªj À zÀÄÝ, zÀ¸gÀ Á ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢¥ÁªÀ½ ºÀ§âU¼ À °À è EªÀjAzÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀÉ ¥Àz æ ÉñÀU¼À ° À è ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ ±ÁAvÀvU É ÀÉ ¨sA À UÀ ºÁUÀÆ D¹Û ¥Á¹ÛUÀÉ £ÀµÀÖ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÁzsÀåvÉU¼ À ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛª.É zÁR¯ÉU¼ À £ À ÀÄß CªÀ¯ÉÆÃQ¹zÀgÀÉ ¸Àzj À ªÀåQÛ AiÀiÁªÀ PÀëtzÀ¯Áèzg À ÀÆ ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ°è ±ÁAw ¸ÀĪÀåªÀ¸ÉÜUÀÉ zsPÀ ÀÌA É iÀiÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ CA±À E°è PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛz.É "
7. Except the above observation, there is no discussion or analysis of any other material by the respondent No.2 with regard to presence of the petitioner causing any threat to the public peace and tranquility. The said order in the considered view of this Court lacks -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7642 WP No. 203879 of 2025 HC-KAR application of mind and subjective satisfaction as held by the Apex Court.
8. That apart, order of externment is for a period between 06.11.2025 and 06.01.2026 which has already spent more than half of its term.
9. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
10. The order impugned dated 06.11.2025 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A is quashed.
11. It is made clear that notwithstanding the order passed herein, the authorities are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, if the situation warrants after due compliance with law, as noted above.
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6 CT:PK