ORDER : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the orders passed by the District Magistrate, U.K. Karwar dated 31.08.2016 in M.A.G. 25.02.2016 UK-M.A.G. 1 under Section 55(A)(B) of the Karnataka Police Act (for short ‘K.P. Act’). 2. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader and perused the impugned orders. 3. Under the impugned order the District Magistrate has passed externment order against the petitioner directing the Police to send the petitioner out of Karwar District for a period of three months and also directed the Police, if the petitioner appears in the said area he should be arrested and proceeding shall be initiated under Section 61 of the K.P. Act. 4. The records disclose that on 05.03.2016 the Superintendent of Police, U.K. Karwar District has submitted a report to the District Magistrate stating that the petitioner is a rowdy element and there are as many as four cases registered against him under the provisions of K.P. Act as well as under the provisions under I.P.C. Further, six cases are initiated against him u/s. 107 of Cr.P.C. Out of them all the four criminal cases registered against him before the Court have been ended in acquittal. Four cases registered u/s. 107 of Cr.P.C. were ended in petitioner executing bonds in favour of the Taluka Executive Magistrate. However, two cases are still pending for enquiry. 5. On the basis of the above materials the Superintendent of Police was of the opinion that inspite of above said criminal cases and 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings being initiated against the petitioner, he has not stopped his illegal activities and is provoking the people in the said area and there is apprehension of danger to the public peace. Therefore, he requested the District Magistrate to take appropriate action u/s. 55 (A)(B) of the K.P. Act. 6. On receipt of the above said report from the Superintendent of Police the District Magistrate has issued a show cause notice on 17.05.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner has appeared before the District Magistrate and engaged a counsel, filed his objections and documents and thereafter argued the matter through his counsel. After hearing both the parties the District Magistrate was of the opinion that Bhatkal taluk is known for its communal differences and there are chances of communal clashes in the said area, therefore, he has passed the impugned order. After hearing both the parties the District Magistrate was of the opinion that Bhatkal taluk is known for its communal differences and there are chances of communal clashes in the said area, therefore, he has passed the impugned order. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that Annexure-B, which is the show-cause notice, itself is not valid and it is not in compliance with Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act. Secondly, he contends that though the District Magistrate has culled out in his order, the objections filed by the petitioner and also referred to the documents produced by him, he has not discussed anything about the objections and the documents produced by the petitioner is concerned. He has not stated as to why the proceedings have to be concluded by passing the impugned orders. Further, the learned counsel contends before this Court that the District Magistrate except stating, in one sentence, that there are chances of communal clashes in the said area, he has not stated anything as to how he has considered the objections and the documents produced by the petitioner herein. 8. The learned Government Pleader supported the orders passed by the learned District Magistrate by submitting that the order passed by the District Magistrate is not a shortcut order; the District Magistrate has considered all the objections and also by recording his satisfaction, and thereafter passed the impugned orders. Therefore, the Government Pleader submits that the order impugned does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 9. Now before adverting to the above submissions, it is just and necessary to look into the relevant provisions of K.P. Act. In order to initiate the proceedings and to proceed with the same under Section 55 of the Act, to pass an order of removal of the persons, about to commit offences, certain procedures have to be followed. The provision under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, mandates that before an order under Section 54, 55 or 56 is passed against any person certain procedure require to be adhered to, Section 58 reads as under: “58. The provision under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, mandates that before an order under Section 54, 55 or 56 is passed against any person certain procedure require to be adhered to, Section 58 reads as under: “58. Hearing to be given before an order is passed under Section 54, 55 or 56.–(1) Before an order under Section 54, 55 or 56 is passed against any person, the officer acting under any of the said sections or any officer above the rank of an Inspector authorized by that officer shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. If such person makes an application for the examination of any witness, produced by him, the authority or officer concerned shall grant such application and examine such witness, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the authority or officer is of opinion that such application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay. Any written statement put in by such person shall be filed with the record of the case. Such person shall be entitled to appear before the officer proceeding under this section by a legal practitioner for the purposes of tendering his explanation and examining the witnesses produced by him. (2) The authority or officer proceeding under sub-section (1) may, for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person against whom any order is proposed to be made under Section 54, 55 or 56 require such person to appear before him and to furnish a security bond with or without sureties for such attendance during the inquiry. If the person fails to furnish the security bond as required or fails to appear before the officer or authority during the inquiry, it shall be lawful for the officer or authority to proceed with the enquiry and thereupon such order as was proposed to be passed against him may be passed.” Therefore, irrespective of the fact, the District Magistrate shall provide an opportunity to the party before him to file his written statement or examining any witnesses or tendering any explanation, it is mandatory on the part of the District Magistrate to issue such legal show-cause notice. In this connection, the learned counsel has relied upon a ruling of this Court in the case of Basappa Ghaviyappa vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 1976 (2) Kar. L.J. 329, wherein this Court has held that:- “No doubt, Section 58 says that the information to be furnished to the person against whom an order is to be passed 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. The test to be applied for the purpose of finding out whether the information which is conveyed to the persons is proper or not, is whether the information is of such a character as to enable them to give explanation.” Therefore, this Court held that issuance of show-cause notice, without mentioning what exactly the allegations made against the person and the materials collected in support of such allegations would vitiate the entire proceedings. 10. In this background, I would come back to the show-cause notice (Annexure-B), dated 17.05.2016, issued by the District Commissioner. It is the case that, after the receipt of the report from the Superintendent of Police is concerned, a notice was issued. In the said notice it is only stated that the Superintendent of Police, Karwar, has submitted a report against the petitioner and the case was posted on 20.05.2016, at 3.00 p.m. and the petitioner is directed to appear in person or through a counsel in order to give his written statement to the said allegations. 11. This notice, as noted above, is very vague. This notice is not supported by a copy of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Karwar. In the said notice, neither the specific contents of the report nor the gist of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police is reiterated, so as to make the said notice in compliance with Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act. Therefore, without issuing any such notice and seeking explanation from the party, the District Magistrate should not have initiated and proceeded with the proceedings against the petitioners. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate is vitiated at the initial stage itself. 12. Therefore, without issuing any such notice and seeking explanation from the party, the District Magistrate should not have initiated and proceeded with the proceedings against the petitioners. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate is vitiated at the initial stage itself. 12. Now, coming to the other materials on record, it is noted, in the impugned order at page No. 3, that the petitioner’s counsel has submitted five documents with list and also submitted his arguments. But, it is not stated in the impugned order that what were the documents that were produced before the District Magistrate and how they were relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case. Though the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is culled out in the order, no reasons have been given meeting out those grounds urged by the petitioner before the District Magistrate. After culling out all the above said allegations, the District Magistrate has stated that, in spite of the petitioners being acquitted in four cases and bonds were executed in four cases under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. two cases are still pending, the petitioner has not mend his conduct, therefore, there is likelihood of communal clashes in the said area. Hence, he has issued such orders. The above said observation made by the District Magistrate is without considering the documents produced by the petitioner and the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned District Magistrate. The learned counsel has produced before this Court, that in the year 2015, particularly, in the month of June, himself and his wife were elected as members of the Zilla Panchayat and in view of they being elected, they cannot leave the place because they have to attend meetings and, as elected members, they also have to take care of the said area with reference to development and other things, and in spite of producing those documents, the same were not considered by the District Magistrate. 13. Be that as it may. As I have already stated that subsequent granting of opportunity after initiation of the proceedings will not cure the initial defect occurred while issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. The show-cause notice is not in compliance with Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act and in view of the decision noted above, whole of the proceeding is vitiated. As I have already stated that subsequent granting of opportunity after initiation of the proceedings will not cure the initial defect occurred while issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. The show-cause notice is not in compliance with Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act and in view of the decision noted above, whole of the proceeding is vitiated. Therefore, in my opinion, the proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate is vitiated by serious procedural irregularities which cannot be cured after initiating the proceedings itself. Therefore, the order impugned under this petition deserves to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order: Order The order passed by the District Magistrate, Karwar, dated 31.08.2016, is hereby quashed. However, liberty is given to the District Magistrate to issue fresh show-cause notice, if need be, in compliance with Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act and following the guidelines noted above in this petition and thereafter, the District Magistrate can proceed with the matter and pass appropriate orders in this regard, in accordance with law.