The delay in issuing an externment order does not necessarily invalidate the order if the live link for passing the order is maintained, and the authority has the power to prevent anti-social activities under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of externment No.B3-2795/2023/TSR dated 13.3.2023 of the 2nd respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range, which is one issued in exercise of the powers under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAAPA', for short). As per the said order, the involvement of the petitioner in criminal cases is as follows;

Sl No Police Station Crime No. Date of the alleged crime Offences u/s Status

1 Wadakkanchery Police Station, Thrissur 1020/2021 21.07.2021 341, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC CC 1819/2021 pending before JFCM, Wadakkanchery

2 Wadakkanchery Police Station, Thrissur 1147/2021 05.09.2021 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w 149 of the IPC SC 1010/2022 pending before Addl. Sessions Court-I, Thrissur

3 Wadakkanchery Police Station, Thrissur 868/2022 21.11.2022 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506, 427 ,308 of the IPC Final Report filed before JFCM, Wadakkanchery

2. The Station House Officer, Wadakkancherry Police Station submitted a report dated 04.01.2023 through the Assistant Police Commissioner, Kunnamangalam, to the 3rd respondent District Police Chief, Thrissur City, with a request to take appropriate action against the petitioner under the provisions of KAAPA. Based on that report, the 3rd respondent submitted Ext.P1 externment proposal dated 14.02.2023 before the 2nd respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range, with a request to issue an order of externment under Section 15(1)(a) of KAAPA, restricting the petitioner from entering Thrissur Revenue District, for the reason that he was regularly indulging in anti-social activities and causing threat to public peace and tranquillity. After considering the proposal in Ext.P1, the 2nd respondent issued an order dated 04.03.2023 to the petitioner, requiring him to appear before him within 5 days and show cause why an order of externment under Section 15(1)(a) of KAAPA should not be passed against the petitioner. The records relating to the proceedings were also served on the petitioner. Though the petitioner received the notice on 01.03.2023, he failed to appear before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 order dated 04.03.2023 requiring the petitioner to appear before him on 07.03.2023. He appeared in person on 07.03.2023 and submitted an explanation. The 2nd respondent heard the petitioner on 07.03.2023. After considering the records and the explanation offered by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed the order of externment dated 13.03.2023, under Section 15(1)(a) of KAAPA, whereby the petitioner is restricted from entering the jurisdiction of Thrissur District for a period of six months from the date of receipt of that order. Based on the order of externment passed by the 2nd respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Wadakkancherry Police Station issued Ext.P3 notice dated nil to the petitioner, whereby he was informed about the order of externment dated 13.03.2023 of the 2nd respondent. In the writ petition, the petitioner has raised a contention that he had not been served with a copy of the order of externment dated 13.3.2023.

3. On 31.5.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and the learned Public Prosecutor took notice for the respondents. The respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit, within two weeks.

4. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 22.06.2023, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

5. One of the grounds raised in this writ petition is that a copy of the order of externment dated 13.03.2023 of the 2nd respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range, is not served on the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the order of externment wa