The court upheld the externment order under the KAA(P) Act, affirming that proper procedures were followed and the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard.

JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J. ​

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P1 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.​ The records available before us reveal that the District Police Chief, Malappuram, 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, Thrissur Range. 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. ​

3.​ For passing the order of externment, the authorities reckoned 3 cases in which the petitioner got himself involved. The details of the said cases are as follows:

4.​ Heard Smt. Krishnapriya Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5.​ Ext.P1 order is seen mainly challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the 3rd respondent passed the said order on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. It was contended that the competent authority passed the impugned order without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity to be heard. Moreover, the impugned order was passed without arriving on the necessary objective and subjective satisfaction. It was further contended that the competent authority passed the impugned order without taking note of the fact that proceedings under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. had already been initiated against the petitioner and the said proceedings would have been sufficient to restrain the petitioner from repeating the criminal activities.

6.​ Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and after entering on the requisite objective and subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, though notices were issued to the petitioner in order to afford him an opportunity of being heard, the petitioner did not respond to those notices. It was further submitted that all the procedural safeguards were complied with while passing the order of externment against the petitioner.

7.​ On perusal of the records it is gatherable that the last prejudicial activity considered by the Superintendent of Police to moot the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act is Tirur police station crime 607/2024 registered against the petitioner alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w 149 IPC. The last prejudicial activity was committed on 19.04.2024 and the case with respect to the same was registered on 20.04.2024. The petitioner was arrested in the said case on 13.05.2024 and he was released on bail 05.06.2024. Records further disclose that, after his release from jail, the District Police Chief had submitted a proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P)Act on 15.07.2024. Thereafter, the jurisdictional authority passed the order of externment on 10.09.2024, whereby the petitioner was restrained from entering the limits of Malappuram District for a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.

8.​ The sequence of events narrated above reveals that there was no inordinate delay in passing the impugned order. Moreover, an externment order under KAA(P) Act is having significant bearing on the personal and fundamental rights of an individual. Therefore, some minimal time is required to collect the details of the cases in which