MANSOOR ALI KHAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner admittedly a rowdy sheeter is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dtd. 16/2/2023 whereby he has been externed from Shivamogga District to Davanagere District for a period of one year. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that such an externment could not have been casually directed; the same is violative of his client's Fundamental Right to life & liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and his Right to reside anywhere in the country assured under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India. He also argues that the preconditions enacted in Sec. 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 have not been complied with.

(2.) Learned AGA appearing for the Respondents vehemently opposes the Petition contending that the Petitioner is a rowdy sheeter who has been continuously disturbing societal peace & tranquility; there have been eleven criminal cases registered against him and of them, he has secured acquittal in seven for want of cogent evidence. They are not cases of honourable acquittal. In matters like this, greater leverage has to be conceded to the Executive who has the advantage of inputs at the hands of the police officials. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of learned AGA. True it is that every national is guaranteed with constituently guaranteed certain Fundamental Rights. However, it is not an absolute guarantee and it cannot be in any civilized jurisdiction; reasonable restrictions by law can be imposed on the exercise of such rights. A member of the civil society has to conduct himself in harmony with rest of the members. That having not happened, the Sub-divisional Magistrate after considering all aspects of the matter has made the impugned order of externment. Such orders being the product of exercise of statutory discretion, the scope of examination is too restricted.