High Court sets aside gambler's externment

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has set aside an externment order passed by district Deputy Commissioner against an alleged 52-year-old gambler.

“A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that note of the necessary procedures are being followed in the case at hand, apart from the order suffering from blatant non-application of mind. It is necessary for the authority to arrive at a conclusion on sound reasons for a person to be externed from his territory, which is not even found in the case at hand,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said while setting aside the DC’s order dated April 10, 2023.

Muniraju V, approached the HC against the order of externment against him. He claimed he ran a mobile canteen for his livelihood. He was embroiled in five cases between 2018 and 2020 all of which were under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act. The section prescribes punishment for the owner of the place where matka and gambling activities take place.

Muniraju’s advocate informed the court that in the five cases, a fine was imposed on him and the cases were closed. There is only one case still pending and the police have already filed a charge sheet in the matter. The order of externment was, however, passed on April 10 based on all the five cases.

The Government advocate argued that the externment order was passed under Section 55(a) of the Act and if a person is about to commit an offence the competent authority is entitled to pass such an order. “In the case of the petitioner, it is necessary to pass such an order as he is likely to be a threat to the other members of the Society,” the court was told.

Apex court has set guidelines

The High Court however, pointed to the Supreme Court's earlier judgement which had set guidelines for orders of externment.

“What should be the consideration by the competent authority while passing the order of externment need not detain this Court to delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of Deepak Vs State of Maharashtra, in the circumstances would become opposite,” the HC said, detailing the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the earlier case.

The Apex Court had strictly laid out that before an externment order is passed the person against whom it is passed should be informed in writing about it. He should also be given an opportunity to tender an explanation. If the explanation is rejected, the reasons have to be recorded in writing.

Citing the Supreme Court verdict, the HC ruled in favour of the petitioner and said, “In the light of the preceding analysis and the judgement of the Apex Court, it deem it appropriate to obliterate the order of exter nment passed against the petitioner. Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent stands quashed. Petitioner is declared entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from quashment of the orders.”