MOHAMMAD USMAN @ USMAN SAB vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11647
WP No. 204307 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030113932026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 204307 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD USMAN @ USMAN SAB
S/O LAL AHMED
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: SWEET BUSINESS
R/O H NO 9-584 SANA MOHALLA
SHAH BAZAR, KALABURAGI
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER
FAHIMUNISSA BEGUM W/O LAL AHMED
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O H NO 9-584, SANA MOHALLA
SHAH BAZAR, KALABURAGI
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SWETA
KULKARNI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
(LAW AND ORDER) AND SPECIAL EXECUTIVE
MAGISTRATE, KALABURAGI CITY-585101
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11647
WP No. 204307 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030113932026
CHOWK POLICE STATION
KALABURAGI CITY-585101
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER NO. 07
GADIPARU/MAG2/KN/2026 DATED 16-05-2026 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-A); B) PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT
AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP, 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 or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the
order No.07/GADIPARU/MAG2/KN/2026 dated
16.05.2026 passed by the respondent no.2
Annexure-A.
b) Pass such other order or orders as this
Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11647
WP No. 204307 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030113932026
facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice and equity .”
2. Sri Rajesh Doddamani, 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
externment order has been passed by the Deputy
1
WP.No.104096/2026 dt.24.08.2026
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11647
WP No. 204307 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030113932026
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:11647
WP No. 204307 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030113932026
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 16.05.2026 was passed by respondent
No.2 - The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and
Order) and Special Executive Magistrate, Kalaburagi City.
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:11647
WP No. 204307 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030113932026
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:11647
WP No. 204307 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030113932026
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:11647
WP No. 204307 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030113932026
the order of externment. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed .
ii) The impugned order dated 16.05.2026
bearing No . ¸ÀA:07/UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ/JªÀiï.J.f.-2/PÀ£À/2026,
passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A,
is set aside.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8