CHANDRAKANT SHANKAR VADDAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
R
CNR: KAHC020087502026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 104096 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAKANT SHANKAR VADDAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. VADAR GALLI, AKKOL, TQ: NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591211.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT,LAW AND ORDER,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT & SPECIAL EXECUTIVE
MAGISTRATE, BELAGAVI,
SP OFFICE, BELAGAVI-590001.
4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CHIKODI, DY SP OFFICE,CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
5. THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
NIPPANI, CPI OFFICE,NIPPANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
6. THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
NIPPANI, RURAL POLICE STATION,
NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO PRODUCE THE NOTIFICATION/ CIRCULAR/
ORDER BEARING NO. HD 520 SST 2025 DATED 18.11.2025
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN MAG/GA.PA/11/BELAGAVI-DISTRICT/2026 ON THE
FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B’GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
1. The captioned writ petition is filed calling in
question the notification issued by respondent No.2
conferring jurisdiction upon the Superintendent of Police to
exercise powers under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police
Act, 1963 (for short, “the Act, 1963”). Consequently, the
petitioner seeks a declaration that the impugned notification
dated 18.11.2025 is non-est and, consequently, seeks
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
quashing of the order of externment dated 28.04.2026
passed by respondent No.3, vide Annexure-E.
2. Learned counsel on record, namely, Shri Vitthal
S. Teli, Shri Mallikarjunaswamy B. Hiremath, Shri Ram P.
Ghorpade, Shri Anand R. Kolli and Shri Amruth V. Jois,
appearing in the connected matters, have also addressed
their arguments. The principal contention advanced in all
these matters is that the Superintendent of Police lacks
jurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 55 of the Act,
1963.
3. Before examining the competence of the
Superintendent of Police to invoke Section 55 of the Act,
1963, it would be appropriate to first ascertain the
legislative intent underlying the incorporation of the said
provision. Section 55 of the Act, 1963, reads as under:
“ 55. Removal of persons about to commit
offences.-
Whenever it shall appear in the City of
Bangalore and other areas for which a Commissioner
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
has been appointed under section 7 to the
Commissioner, and in other area or areas to which
the Government may, by notification in the official
Gazette, extend the provision of this section, to the
District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
having jurisdiction and specially empowered by the
Government in that behalf,-
(a) that the movements or acts of any person are
causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or
harm to person or property, or
(b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that such person is engaged or is about to be
engaged in the commission of an offence
involving force or violence or an offence
punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of
the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of
any such offence, and when in the opinion of
such officer witnesses are not willing to come
forward to give evidence in public against such
person by reason of apprehension on their part
as regards the safety of their person or
property, or
(c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely
to result from the continued residence of an
immigrant, the said officer may, by an order in
writing duly served on him, or by beat of drum
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
or otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such
person or immigrant so to conduct himself as
shall seem necessary in order to prevent
violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread
of such disease or to remove himself outside
the area within the local limits of his
jurisdiction or such area and any district or
districts or any part thereof contiguous thereto
by such route and within such time as the said
officer may specify and not to enter, or return
to the said place from which he was directed to
remove himself.”
(emphasis supplied)
4. A plain reading of the provision extracted supra
makes the legislative scheme abundantly clear. The
legislature, in its wisdom, has specifically identified the
authorities competent to exercise jurisdiction under Section
55 of the Act, 1963. Within the City of Bangalore and other
areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under
Section 7 of the Act, 1963, the power is vested in the
Commissioner. In other areas, the power may be extended
by the Government, by notification in the Official Gazette,
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
only to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate having jurisdiction and specially empowered by
the Government in that behalf.
5. It would also be apposite to extract Section 56 of
the Act, 1963, which reads as under:
“56. Removal of persons convicted of certain
offences: If a person has been convicted at any time
either before or after the commencement of this
Act,—
(a) of an offence under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of
the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860); or
(b) of an offence under section 6 of 13 of the
Mysore Mines Act, 1906 (Mysore Act 4 of 1906); or
(c) of an offence under section 86 of the
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act 5 of
1964); or
(d) twice of an offence under section 19 of the
Mysore Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1944 (Mysore Act
33 of 1944) or any other corresponding law in force
in any area of the State; or
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
(e) twice of an offence under the Suppression of
Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956
(Central Act 104 of 1956); or
(f) twice of an offence under the Untouchability
(Offences) Act, 1955 (Central Act 22 of 1955); or
(g) thrice of an offence within a period of three
years under section 78, 79 or 80 of this Act; or
(h) thrice of an offence within a period of three
years under sections 32, 34, 37 or 38A of the
Karnataka Excise Act 1965, (Karnataka Act 21 of
1966),
the Commissioner, the District Magistrate, or
any Sub-divisional Magistrate specially empowered
by the Government in this behalf, if he has reason to
believe that such person is likely again to engage
himself in the commission of an offence similar to
that for which he was convicted, may direct such
person to remove himself outside the area within the
local limits of his jurisdiction or such area or any
district or districts or any part thereof contiguous
thereto, by such route and within such time as the
said officer may specify and not to enter or return to
the place from which he was directed to remove
himself.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section
“an offence similar to that for which a person was
convicted” shall mean,—
(i) in the case of a person convicted of an offence
mentioned in clause (a), an offence falling under any
of the Chapters of the Indian Penal Code mentioned
in that clause; and
(ii) in the case of person convicted of an offence
mentioned in clauses (e) and (f), an offence falling
under the provisions of the Acts mentioned
respectively in the said clauses.”
(emphasis supplied)
6. A conjoint reading of Sections 55 and 56 of the
Act, 1963, leaves no manner of doubt that the power
contemplated under the said provisions can be exercised
only by the authorities expressly identified therein. Section
55 further contemplates that, in areas other than those
falling within the jurisdiction of a Commissioner appointed
under Section 7, the power may be extended by the
Government only by issuing a notification in the Official
Gazette to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
Magistrate having jurisdiction and specially empowered in
that behalf. Thus, the statutory scheme itself identifies the
permissible authorities and the manner in which the power
can be extended.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate, Shri
Sharad V. Magadum, has sought to sustain the conferment
of powers upon the Superintendent of Police under Sections
55 and 56 of the Act, 1963, relying upon the notification
dated 18.11.2025, which has been produced before this
Court. The said notification consists of two parts. The first
part purports to exercise powers under Section 15 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,
“BNSS, 2023”), while the second part purports to appoint
Additional District Magistrates and Special Executive
Magistrates and, consequentially, to confer upon the
Superintendent of Police powers under various provisions of
the Act, 1963, including Sections 55 and 56.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
8. The first and foremost impediment to sustaining
the said notification is that it does not satisfy the express
statutory requirement contained in Section 55 of the Act,
1963. The provision mandates that, in areas other than
those where a Commissioner has been appointed, the
extension of the power is to be made by notification in the
Official Gazette. On a specific query from the Court, learned
Additional Government Advocate fairly submitted that the
notification dated 18.11.2025 has not been published in the
Official Gazette.
9. It is a settled principle that a statutory
notification which is required by the parent enactment to be
published in the Official Gazette acquires legal efficacy only
upon such publication. The notification cannot be treated as
operative in a fragmented or incomplete manner.
Publication in the Official Gazette is not an empty formality
where the statute expressly prescribes it as a condition for
the exercise of delegated statutory power.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
10. Consequently, in the absence of publication of
the notification dated 18.11.2025 in the Official Gazette, the
statutory requirement under Section 55 of the Act, 1963,
remains unfulfilled. The notification, therefore, cannot
confer any jurisdiction upon the Superintendent of Police to
exercise powers under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act, 1963.
On this ground alone, the exercise of such power by the
Superintendent of Police would be without jurisdiction.
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.
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
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 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
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
substituted by another authority merely by an executive act
of delegation.
14. It follows that even a notification published in the
Official Gazette cannot cure the inherent lack of statutory
competence of the Superintendent of Police. The power to
extend the operation of Section 55 is itself circumscribed by
the statute.
15. It is a well-settled principle of statutory
interpretation that where a statute prescribes the authority,
mode, and manner of exercise of power, the executive
cannot, by administrative instruction, circular, or
notification, confer such power upon an authority not
contemplated by the statute. Executive instructions may
supplement statutory rules where there is a gap, but they
cannot override, amend, or run contrary to the express
provisions of the parent statute. This principle has been
consistently affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
various High Courts, including the proposition that statutory
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
rules and designations cannot be superseded by executive
orders.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v.
Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 as well as in Vijay
Singh v. State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 363 has observed
that where a statute confers a power and prescribes the
manner and the authority by whom it is to be exercised, the
same must be exercised only in the manner prescribed and
by the authority designated, any departure, including
performance by an unauthorised person, renders the act
invalid. Further, in Sangeeta Suryavanshi v. State of
Chhattisgarh AIR 1991 SC 772 , the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held that the executive instructions or notifications
cannot amend, supersede or run contrary to the express
provisions of the parent statute. Applying this to Section 55
of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, the Superintendent of
Police, not being a Commissioner, District Magistrate or
Sub-Divisional Magistrate as contemplated by the statute, is
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
not a competent authority, any order of externment passed
by him is without jurisdiction.
17. This conclusion is also fortified by the principle
recognised in the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sri
KedarNath v. Mool Chand, reported in AIR 1953 All
62 , wherein the expression “District Magistrate” was
considered in the context of the statutory authority
conferred upon such officer. The statutory description of an
authority cannot be enlarged by an executive notification so
as to include an officer who does not fall within the
statutory class contemplated by the legislature.
18. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid
statutory scheme, the notification dated 18.11.2025, which
is now placed on record by learned Additional Government
Advocate, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The second
part of the notification, insofar as it purports to confer
powers under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act, 1963, upon
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
the Superintendent of Police, is contrary to the express
mandate of Section 55 of the Act, 1963.
19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered view that the conferment of powers under
Sections 55 and 56 of the Act, 1963, upon the
Superintendent of Police under the notification dated
18.11.2025 is without jurisdiction and contrary to the
express scheme of the Act, 1963. The notification, insofar
as it purports to confer such jurisdiction upon the
Superintendent of Police, is therefore liable to be declared
non-est and a nullity. Consequently, all consequential
proceedings founded upon such exercise of jurisdiction
cannot be sustained.
20. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed .
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:13256
WP No. 104096 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020087502026
(ii) The notification dated 18.11.2025 is
declared non-est and a nullity, insofar as
the second part thereof purports to
appoint/confer powers upon the
Superintendent of Police as the authority
competent to exercise powers under the
Karnataka Police Act, 1963, including
Sections 55 and 56 of Karnataka Police Act,
1963, thereof.
(iii) Consequently, the order of externment
dated 28.04.2026 passed by respondent
No.3, vide Annexure-E, is hereby quashed.
(iv) It is clarified that this order shall not
preclude the competent statutory authority
from taking such action as may be
permissible in law, strictly in accordance
with the provisions of the Karnataka Police
Act, 1963.
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
VNP / CT:GSM
LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 3.1
Digitally Signed by SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM