Externment Order Not Valid If Competent Authority Fails To Consider Objective Material Or Record Subjective Satisfaction: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that consideration of objective material and subjective satisfaction of the competent authority is necessary before passing an order of externment. A single judge bench of Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda partly allowed the petition filed by one Mali Rizwan and quashed the order of Sub-divisional Magistrate, externing him from the limits of Kundapura...
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that consideration of objective material and subjective satisfaction of the competent authority is necessary before passing an order of externment.
A single judge bench of Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda partly allowed the petition filed by one Mali Rizwan and quashed the order of Sub-divisional Magistrate, externing him from the limits of Kundapura to Sagara Sub-Division for 3 months. It said,
“The objective material relied on is only the police report for subjective satisfaction. Non-compliance of Section 56 of the K.P. Act (Karnataka Police Act) is imminent. The impugned order lacks subjective satisfaction and test of reasonableness.”
The petitioner contended that the requisition made by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gangoli Police Station was the basis for initiating the proceedings against him. In the said requisition, the request was made for externing the petitioner for a period of six months from October 2021 till March 2022.
The prosecution opposed the plea submitting that the petitioner is involved in as many as ten cases and his presence in the location is causing law and order problems.
Firstly, the bench noted the request for extermining the petitioner for a period of six months was from October 2021 to March 2022. The impugned order is for the externment of the petitioner for a period of three months from 14-03-2023. Thus it said “This shows without any request the learned Executive Magistrate has passed the impugned Order.”
Noting that out of ten cases filed against the petitioner, six of them ended in acquittal, in two cases, charge sheet is filed pending for enquiry, and one case is under investigation, the bench held “Soon before passing the impugned order, there is no objective material placed for subjective satisfaction.”
The bench referred to Supreme Court judgment in the case of Deepak Vs. State of Maharashtra wherein it was held that competent authority must record its subjective satisfaction that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property.
Accordingly, it remitted the matter back to the Executive Magistrate with liberty to the competent authority to initiate fresh proceedings subject to compliance of the statutory requirements.
Case Title: Mali Rizwan And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9709 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
Date of Order: 11-05-2023
Appearance: Advocate Mohammed Mujassim for Petitioner
HCGP Gopala Krishna Soodi for respondents.