(BY SRI. DALWAI VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI.HARISHA A.S., AGA)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 s. 112
- Karnataka Police Act, 1963 s. 78
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. The petitioner has raised certain grounds submitting that when the order is passed on 14.05.2026 and the there is right of appeal within 30 days from the date of order…
Case journey
Linked proceedings
Writ Petition No. 15663 of 2026
This judgmentBuilt from judgments in the Courts & Cases corpus and the links detected in their text. Coverage is incomplete — earlier or later proceedings may be missing, so verify against the official record. How Case Journey works
Judgment
(BY SRI. DALWAI VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE -560 001
THE SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BANANAJE, UDUPI -576 101
THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTA PS GILIYARU VILLAGE, KOTA POST, UDUPI TALUK – 576 221 (BY SRI.HARISHA A.S., AGA) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25304 WP No. 15663 of 2026 HC-KAR THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED EXTERMENT ORDER NO. MAG SR/22/2026 DATED 14.05.2026 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE R2 SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE- SUPERINTEND OF POLICE UDUPI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: i. Call for records ii. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned externment order No.MAG SR:22/2026 dated 14.05.2026 Respondent No.2- Special Executive Magistrate – Superintendent of Police, Udupi. (Annexure-A) passed iii. Pass any other orders as it may deem fit in the interests of justice and equity.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner has been accused of being involved in cricket betting activities in public, resulting in three FIR’s being registered against him for the offences punishable under Section 112 BNS, 2023 (Petty organised crime) and Section 78 of the Karnataka Police Act,
1963. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25304 WP No. 15663 of 2026 HC-KAR received a communication dated 24.03.2026 from the Sub- Inspector, Kota Police Station, seeking an order to remove the petitioner from the district under Section 55 of the KP Act due to his involvement in the public betting activities. The respondent issued a notice dated 15.04.2026 directing the petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 on 22.04.2026. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No.2 on
22.04.2026 through his Advocate and filed his objection in writing. A hearing was conducted on 13.05.2026 and impugned order was passed by Respondent No.2 on 14.05.2026, externing the petitioner from Udupi District for the period from from 14.05.2026 to 13.11.2026.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice issued, the report of the Police Inspector and order passed under Section 55(a) of the KP Act have no nexus. It is submitted that, by virtue of this order, the petitioner right to personal liberty is curtailed and in the light of the settled law, the respondents have to pass an order with sound reasoning. It is submitted that, the order is passed on
14.05.2026, the order states that he has a right of appeal to - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25304 WP No. 15663 of 2026 HC-KAR the Government under Section 59 of the KP Act and on the very same day the order is given effect. It is submitted that, on these grounds, the impugned order needs to be set aside.
Learned AGA appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that considering the fact that the petitioner is continuously involved in the offences and that an order has rightly been passed under Section 55(a) of the KP Act, it requires no interference from this court.
Operative part
Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. The petitioner has raised certain grounds submitting that when the order is passed on 14.05.2026 and the there is right of appeal within 30 days from the date of order, without even giving an opportunity to the petitioner, respondents have implemented the order. The show cause notice, the impugned order and report of the Sub- Inspector, Kota Police Station are all on different grounds. This court has perused the three impugned orders, the show cause notice and also the report placed before the Court. A bare perusal of the same discloses that it revolves around the petitioner betting activities, however, what is not stated in the - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25304 WP No. 15663 of 2026 HC-KAR show cause notice has been stated by the Sub-Inspector, Kota Police Station in his report with regard to the threat to the witnesses but ultimately the order is passed under Section 55(a) of the KP Act. Against this order, he has a right of appeal under Section 59 of the KP Act. This court finds force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when he has right of appeal and without even affording an opportunity to avail the remedy, the respondents have externed the petitioner and implemented the order. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an action by the respondent cannot be sustained when the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy under Section 59 of KP Act . Under these circumstances protecting the interest of the petitioner, this court is passing the following: ORDER i. Petitioner shall approach the Respondent No.1 by 12.06.2026 and till such time impugned order shall not be given effect and the 1st respondent shall disposed off the appeal in accordance with law. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:25304 WP No. 15663 of 2026 HC-KAR ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 125
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 112; Karnataka Police Act, 1963 — s. 78.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.