IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the delay in issuing an externment order under the KAA(P) Act was not excessive and that such orders can coexist with ongoing proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

1. This writ petition is filed assailing Ext.P6 order of restriction passed against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(b) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity].

2. The records reveal that the Station House Officer, Cheruthuruthy Police Station has submitted a report for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007. For initiation of proceedings, the petitioner has been classified as a “known rowdy” as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of KAA(P) Act, 2007. On receipt of the report of S.H.O. Cheruthuruthy, the District Police Chief, Thrissur City recommended for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under KAA(P) Act. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur City, the authorised officer, issued a show cause notice dated 07.06.2024 to the petitioner asking him to appear on 14.06.2024 and to show cause why an order under Section 15(1) shall not be issued against him. However, the petitioner informed his inconvenience to appear on 16.04.2024 and sought an adjournment. Hence another notice was issued to the petitioner and in response to the same, he appeared before the authorised officer on 20.06.2024 and raised his objections. The authorised officer after considering the reply and hearing the petitioner, passed an order under Section 15(1)(b) of the KAA(P) Act on 21.06.2024 which was served to the petitioner on 27.06.2024. As per the said order, the petitioner was restrained from entering Thrissur Revenue District for a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order, though the petitioner approached the Advisory Board, the Board confirmed the order of externment issued by the competent authority.

3. Sri. Jithin Babu A. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the externment order after the date of last prejudicial activity. It is pointed out that the long delay in passing the externment order will snap the live link between the last prejudicial act and the purpose of the externment order and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no need to initiate proceedings under the KAA(P) Act particularly when proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had already been initiated against the petitioner.

4. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor asserted that there is no unreasonable delay in passing the order of externment. According to him, some minimal delay is inevitable while passing an order especially when it is the duty of the authority to ensure adherence to the natural justice principles while passing such order. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and under Section 15(1) of KAA(P) Act operate in different spheres and initiation of proceedings under 107 Cr.P.C. will no way preclude the power of the competent authority to pass an order under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act.

5. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the records. From the records, it is discernible that the petitioner was classified as a “known rowdy” due to his involvement in three cases. The details are as below:

6. While coming to the contention of the petitioner regarding the alleged delay that occurred in pass