IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the externment order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, confirming procedural compliance and justifying the delay in issuance.

JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P6 order of externment passed against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity].

2. By the said order, the petitioner was interdicted from entering the jurisdictional limit of Idukki District Police Chief for one year from the date of the receipt of the order. However, after considering the representation submitted by the externee, the Advisory Board modified the said order, and the period of externment was reduced to 9 months from the date of the service of the impugned order and it is further directed that after the expiry of the period of 9 months of externment, the petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Idukki Police Station, on every Monday between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for the remaining period of 3 months.

3. The records available before us reveal that, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in NDPS cases, the District Police Chief, Idukki, submitted a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the authorised officer, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam Range. For initiation of proceedings, the petitioner has been classified as a “known goonda” as defined under Section 2(o)(i) r/w 2(j) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.

4. For passing the order of externment, the authority reckoned 3 cases in which the petitioner was involved. The details of the said cases are as follows:

5. Heard Sri. M.V. Rajendran Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Ext.P6 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. According to the counsel, there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the order of externment, and hence the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of externment order is snapped. The learned counsel further submitted that the copy of the proposal which is a crucial document is not served on the petitioner and thereby he was handicapped in filing an effective representation before the Advisory Board. Moreover, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order was passed in a casual manner without arriving at the necessary objective and subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel, apart from registering an FIR, there is nothing more to show that the petitioner has complicity in the commission of the last case registered against him and therefore, the said case could not be considered as a qualified one to consider the same for passing the impugned order.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and after entering on the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no inordinate delay in passing the impugned order and hence the petitioner could not be heard to say that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of externment was snapped. It was further submitted that all the procedural safeguards were complied with while passing the order of externment against the petitioner and hence, no interference is warranted.

8. On perusal of the records, it is gatherable that the last prejudicial activity c