IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO. 15960/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. SUNIL @ PAPU S/O. NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT SADASHIVANA KOPPALU, HUNSUR TOWN, HUNSURU TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 008.
(BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM, ADV. FOR SRI. VINOD KUMAR M, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 004.
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER HUNSUR TOWN POLICE STATION, ... PETITIONER HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 008.
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, AGA) ... RESPONDENTS ******** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-2, THEREBY PASSING AN ORDER EXTERNMENT OF THE PETITIONER FROM MYSORE DISTRICT FROM 08.04.2019 TO 19.04.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. Aruna Shyam, learned counsel for Mr. Vinod Kumar. M, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vijayakumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks for quashing of the order of externment of the petitioner from Mysore District from 08.04.2019 till 19.04.2019.
4. Facts leading to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a resident of Hunsur Town in Mysore District. An order of externment of petitioner has been passed on 05.04.2019 by which the petitioner has been externed from Mysore District from 08.04.2019 till 19.04.2019. In this factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has not committed any offence. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he is the only breadwinner of his family and has to take care of his family.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate at the outset has submitted that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 59 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and the petitioner should be relegated to avail the alternative remedy of appeal.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to file an appeal. However, till the petitioner files an appeal, he should be afforded protection. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 09.01.2018 passed by a bench of this Court in W.P.No.712/2018.
8. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides. Admittedly, the petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal under Section 59 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
9. So far as the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that till the decision of the appeal, the impugned order should not be given effect to. I am afraid that in the fact situation of the case, such relief cannot be granted as the order of externment has been passed only for a period of 11 days and in case the interim order is granted, the same would tantamount to granting final relief to the petitioner without even filing of the appeal by the petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by a Bench of this Court dated 09.01.2018 passed in W.P.No.712/2018 is distinguishable on the facts of the case which do not apply to the present fact situation of the case.
10. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner file an appeal against the impugned order along with an application for stay. Needless to state that in case such an application is filed along with an application for stay, the Appellate Authority shall pass appropriate orders on the application for stay within a period of three days from the date of filing of such an application for stay.
Copy of this order shall be handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sd/- JUDGE VP