RAJU @ SANA KODLI RAJU vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11774
WP No. 204419 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030116382026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 204419 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
RAJU @ SANA KODLI RAJU
S/O BALAPPA GURUSANGI,
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC PLUMBER,
R/O TRAFILE AREA, KALABURAGI 585102
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BASAVALING NASI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KALABURAGI
NOW REPRESENTED BY THE HCGP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LAW AND
ORDER)
AND SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,
KALABURAGI NOW REPRESENTED BY THE
ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585102.
Digitally
signed by
SWETA
KULKARNI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VEERANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11774
WP No. 204419 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030116382026
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 PRAYING TO, A) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING OF ANNEXURE-L THE IMPUGNED
ORDER U/SEC.55 (A) (B) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT,
PASSING THE ORDER OF EXTORNMENT FOR A PERIOD OF
ONE YEAR FROM 05/08/2026 TO 04/08/2027 BEARING
FILE NO.17/GADIPARU/M.A.J-2/2026 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND QUASH THE SAME IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.D) AND GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEF OR DIRECTION AS THIS HONOURABLE
COURT DEEMS FIT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF
THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for the
following prayers:
“ a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing of
Annexure-L the impugned order u/sec.55 (a) (b) of
Karnataka Police Act, passing the order of
Extornment for a period of one year from
05/08/2026 to 04/08/2027 bearing file
no.17/GADIPARU/M.A.J-2/2026 passed by
respondent No.2 and quash the same in the interest
of justice and equity.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11774
WP No. 204419 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030116382026
d) And grant such other relief or direction as
this Honourable Court deems fit the facts and
circumstance of the case .”
2. Sri Basavaling Nasi, learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that, though there is an
alternate remedy provided under the Karnataka Police Act,
1963 (‘the Act’ for short), the writ petition is required to
be entertained, as respondent No.2 has passed an order of
externment against the petitioner, which is impermissible
in view of the statutory scheme of the Act. It is further
submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of CHANDRAKANT SHANKAR VADDAR Vs. THE
1
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS , has considered
the similar issue and held that the power under Section 55
of the Act conferred only upon the Commissioner of Police,
wherever Police Commissionerate has been established, or
the power is vested with the District Magistrate or Sub-
Divisional Magistrate and in the case on hand, the
1
WP.No.104096/2026 dt.24.08.2026
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11774
WP No. 204419 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030116382026
externment order has been passed by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, who is not a competent authority
under Section 55 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground of lack of
competence/jurisdiction. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ
petition.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent - State supports the
impugned order and submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court has considered the similarly placed case and
held that only the officers referred in Section 55 of the Act
are empowered to exercise the said power. It is further
submitted that, in the case on hand, the petitioner is a
habitual offender and, if the writ petition is allowed, he
would indulge in commission of further offences and taking
note of the same, the authority being satisfied that the
case falls within the scope of Sections 55 and 56 of the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11774
WP No. 204419 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030116382026
Act, ordered the externment. Hence, he seeks to dismiss
the writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent – State and meticulously
perused the material on record.
5. It is not in dispute that the impugned order of
externment dated 05.09.2026 was passed by respondent
No.2 - The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and
Order) and Special Executive Magistrate, Kalaburagi.
6. I have perused Sections 7 to 11, Section 2(10)
and Sections 55 and 56 of the Act as well as Sections 14
to 17 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
and the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case
of CHANDRAKANT SHANKAR VADDAR referred supra .
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11774
WP No. 204419 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030116382026
For easy reference, paragraph Nos.11 to 13 of the said
order are extracted hereinbelow:
“ 11. There is, however, another and more
fundamental question which falls for consideration.
Assuming that the State were to issue and publish a
notification in the Official Gazette purporting to
confer powers under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act,
1963, the question would still arise as to whether
such a notification could validly designate a
Superintendent of Police as the authority competent
to exercise those powers. This question requires
examination with reference to the express language
employed by the legislature in Section 55 of the Act,
1963.
12. The answer, in the considered opinion of
this Court, has to be emphatically in the negative.
Section 55 of the Act, 1963, does not confer an
unrestricted power upon the Government to choose
any authority of its choice. The provision specifically
identifies the Commissioner as the competent
authority in the City of Bangalore and in other areas
for which a Commissioner has been appointed under
Section 7 of the Act, 1963. In other areas, the
Government may, by notification in the Official
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11774
WP No. 204419 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030116382026
Gazette, extend the provision only to the District
Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate having
jurisdiction and specially empowered by the
Government in that behalf.
13. The statutory classification is, therefore,
clear and unambiguous. The Superintendent of Police
does not fall within either of the categories expressly
contemplated by Section 55 of the Act, 1963. The
office or cadre of Superintendent of Police cannot be
equated with that of a District Magistrate or a Sub-
Divisional Magistrate. The statutory authority
identified by the legislature cannot be substituted by
another authority merely by an executive act of
delegation. ”
7. Considering the aforesaid reasoning of the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
CHANDRAKANT SHANKAR VADDAR referred supra , and
considering the case on hand, respondent No.2 is not the
competent authority to pass the order of externment, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside solely on the
ground that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to pass
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11774
WP No. 204419 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030116382026
the order of externment. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed .
ii) The impugned order dated 05.09.2026
bearing No . 17/GADIPARU/M.A.G.-
2/KA.NA/2026 , passed by respondent No.2
at Annexure-L, is set aside.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
NJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19