BASAPPA GHAVIYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions filed under S.482 of the CPC, 1973, what is sought to be quashed is the order, dt.17-12-1975 made by the Dist Magistrate, Bijapur, in proceedings bearing No.MAG.SR.185/75 initiated under Section 55 (a) & (b) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act), calling upon the petitioners herein to appear before him and to explain as to why an order should not be made against them u/Ss.56 & 57 of the Act directing them not to enter the boundaries of Bijapur Dist for a period of one year. On a report made by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hunagund, for initiation of proceedings under S.55(a) & (b) of the Act against the petitioners, the District Magistrate made the impugned order presumably under Sec.58 of the Act, and the relevant part of that section reads :

(2.) From the above, it is obvious the Dist Magistrate, apart from saying that the PSI had cited a number of instances of rude behaviour and dangerous and desperate acts, had not referred to the particular instances which appear to have weighed with him while making the impugned order. Sri C.M.Desai who appeared for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is on the face of it illegal since it does not satisfy the requirements of S.58 of the Act. Elaborating the contention what he submitted was that it is incumbent on the officer concerned to inform the persons to be proceeded with under Ss.54, 55 or 56 of the Act in writing of the general nature of the material allegations made against them and to given them a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them and that not having been done in the present case the impugned order cannot be sustained. In other words, his argument was that the allegations made against the petitioners are too general in nature to enable them to lender their explanation thereto and it is very likely that it would occasion a iailure of justice.

(3.) Now the test to be applied for the purpose of finding out whether the information which is conveyed to the petitioners is proper or not is whether that information is of such a character as to enable them to give a reasonable explanation. No doubt S.58 of the Act says that the information to be furnished should be of a general nature. But at the same time it should not be too general or vague so as to render the persons not able to tender their explanation in respect of what is levelled against them in such proceedings. While notice may be general it must not be too general or too abstract so as to smother the materiality of the allegations. In the present case, the Dist Magistrate, except copying the words from the relevant sections of the Act, has not indicated the material allegations in the impugned order. As mentioned earlier, he appears to have made the order on the basis of the various allegations made in the report of the PSI. But there is no reference at all in the impugned order to those allegations. It is therefore difficult to say that the petitioners would be in a position to tender their explanation in as effective a manner as possible in respect of the allegations made against them in the report of the PSI. The object underlying S.58 of the Act is to give the persons concerned a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding the allegations made against them, and the Dist Magistrate appears to have not realised the importance of this fact while making the impugned order. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained.