The court upheld the externment order under the KAA(P) Act, affirming that procedural requirements were met and the authority's satisfaction regarding bail conditions was sufficient.

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]. By the said order, the petitioner was interdicted from entering the limits of the Revenue District, Malappuram, for a period of one year from the date of the receipt of the order.

2. The records available before us reveal that, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities, 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 the KAA(P) Act, 2007.

3. The authority considered 4 cases in which the petitioner was involved for passing the order of externment. The last case considered for passing the impugned order of externment is crime No.557/2024 of Vengara Police Station registered, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 392 IPC.

4. Heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Ext.P1 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 the externment is snapped. The learned counsel further submitted that, out of the cases considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the impugned order, the last two cases are under investigation. According to the counsel, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.557/2024. But prior to the registration of the said crime, another case was registered against the petitioner as crime No.242/2023 of Thamarassery Police Station and in the said case, the formal arrest of the externee was recorded only on 12.07.2024 while he was in custody in connection with the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity. Moreover, though the petitioner got bail in the last case registered against him on 17.07.2024, he got bail in the last but one case, i.e., in crime No.242/2023 only on 11.09.2024. However, in the impugned order, the fact that the petitioner was released on bail in the last but one case is not adverted to, and it is not mentioned that the bail conditions imposed in the said case were not sufficient to deter the externee from involving in criminal activities. Moreover, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order was passed in a casual manner without arriving at the requisite objective and subjective satisfaction, and hence warrants interference.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at 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. According to the learned Government Pleader the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed by the court while granting bail to the externee in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity as well as in the last but one case were duly considered by the jurisdictional authority and it was after being satisfied that those conditions are not