The Karnataka High Court in the case Mali Rizwan And State of Karnataka & Others observed and has made it clear that consideration of objective material and subjective satisfaction of the competent authority is necessary before passing of an order of externment.
The single bench headed by Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda in the case observed and has partly allowed the plea moved by one Mali Rizwan and quashed the order of Sub-divisional Magistrate, externing him from the limits of Kundapura to the Sagara Sub-Division for the period of three months.
The court stated that the objective material relied on is only the police report for subjective satisfaction and that the Non-compliance of Section 56 of the K.P. Act (Karnataka Police Act) is imminent. Therefore, the impugned order lacks subjective satisfaction and the test of reasonableness.
Further, the petitioner in the plea contended that the requisition made by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gangoli Police Station was the basis for initiating the proceedings against him and in the said requisition, the request was made for externing the petitioner for a period of six months which being from October 2021 till March 2022
On the other, 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.
The bench in the case observed and has noted the request for extermining the petitioner for a period of six months was from October 2021 to March 2022. Thus, the impugned order is for the externment of the petitioner which being for the period of three months from 14-03-2023, wherein it stated that this shows without any request the learned Executive Magistrate has passed the impugned Order.
The court noted that out of ten cases filed against the petitioner, six of them ended in acquittal, in two case s, charge sheet is filed pending for enquiry, and one case is under investigation.
Further, the bench held while passing the impugned order that there being no objective material placed for subjective satisfaction.
Therefore, the bench also referred the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Deepak Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein the court held that the 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, the court observed and has remitted the matter back to the Executive Magistrate with liberty to the competent authority for initiating fresh proceedings which being subject to compliance of the statutory requirements.
The counsel, Advocate Mohammed Mujassim appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, HCGP Gopala Krishna Soodi represented the respondent.