GANESH @ CHAKLI GANESH v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR-580001, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA & Ors.

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, QUASH NOTICE DATED 27.11.2025 BEARING NO.EM.AG/GADIPARU/VIVA/12/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:269 WP No. 109833 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that, this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to issue writ of certiorari; a) Quash notice dated 27.11.2025 bearing No. EM.AG/GADIPARU/VIVA/12/2025-26 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A. b) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity.”

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is resident of Murdeshwar. The respondent No.2 has issued notice under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and Sectio 55(a) and (b) for the externment of the petitioner. It is stated that the notice is issued - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:269 WP No. 109833 of 2025 HC-KAR on the basis of the old acquitted cases. Hence, the notice is vague and unsustainable under law and the same is liable to be quashed. It is stated that the petitioner was not involved in any group fighting as alleged by respondent No.4. It is his case that the respondent No.4, who is the Sub Inspector of Police, made false allegations against the petitioner and without conducting investigation, has submitted the false report to respondent No.2 and on the basis of such false report, the respondent No.2 has issued the notice. Hence, the notice issued by the respondent No.2 is illegal, unconstitutional and the same is liable to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure that is adopted by the Police is contrary to Section 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 of the Act. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Court in Udandappa Hanumappa Pujari v. State of Karnataka1. Relying on this judgment, the learned counsel submits that the respondent No.2 has failed to follow the procedure and the notice needs to be set aside. 1 ILR 1985 KAR 311 - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:269 WP No. 109833 of 2025 HC-KAR

4. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that notice is issued to the petitioner as per Section 58 of the Act. If the petitioner is of the view that the respondents cannot issue a notice under Section 58 of the Act or there are any latches on the part of the Police in giving notice under Section 58 of the Act, he can submit his explanation to the said notice and if any order is passed, he has a right of appeal to the government under Section 59 of the Act. It is submitted that it is a premature writ petition and there is no illegality with the action of the respondents in issuing the notice and the present writ petition has to be dismissed.

5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Section 54 of the Act deals with dispersal of gangs and removal of persons convicted of certain offences, Section 55 of the Act deals with removal of persons about to commit offences, Section 56 of the Act deals with removal of persons convicted of certain offences, wherein the offences are enumerated, Section 57 of the Act deals with the period of operation of orders under section 54, 55 or 56 of the - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:269 WP No. 109833 of 2025 HC-KAR Act and Section 58 of the Act provides for hearing to be given before an order is passed under Section 54, 55 or 56 of the Act.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that such a notice given is bad and the proper investigation is not conducted has no legs to stand when Section 58 of the Act provides for hearing, the whole purpose behind that is to understand what is the defence of the person and according to the petitioner, they have issued this notice based on a report of respondent No.4 and based on the earlier cases. If that is so, it is always open for him to say that the notice is bad and it is contrary to the provisions under Sections 54 to 56 of the Act. The petitioner cannot come before this Court. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner does not lay any ratio as submitted by the petitioner.

7. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the notice issued by the respondent No.2. Even if an order is passed, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file an appeal under Section 59 of the Act, but he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, in that view of the matter, this - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:269 WP No. 109833 of 2025 HC-KAR Court finds no reason to interfere with the notice issued by the respondents and accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i) Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to give his explanation and avail appropriate remedies available to him under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. ii) All I.As., in this writ petition stands closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MEG CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38