JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The prayers in the afore captioned Writ Petition (Criminal) are as follows:-

“(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P11 order and further may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P11.

(ii) To declare that the petitioner is not liable to be restrained under Section 15(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act.

(iii) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents. ”

2. Heard Sri.J.R. Prem Navaz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A. Anas, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents.

3. Today, when the matter has been taken up for consideration, Sri.J.R. Prem Navaz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit on the basis of instructions of his party that, the proceedings under challenge in the above writ petition (criminal) is only a show cause notice at Ext.P11 dated 07.07.2022, issued by the 3rd respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police, directing the petitioner to show cause as to why an adverse externment order, as envisaged under Sec.15 of the Kerala Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) [KAAP] Act, 2007, shall not be issued against the petitioner and that, therefore the petitioner will file objection thereto and this Court may direct the 3rd respondent authority to consider the said objection, before passing any adverse order and also to afford personal hearing to the petitioner, either in person or through authorised representative/authorised counsel, if any, etc. and that the petitioner is not pressing any submissions on the merits of the case.

4. Sri.K.A. Anas, learned Public Prosecutor, would submit on the basis of instructions of the respondents that from the pleadings and materials on record, it appears that, earlier two other show cause notices were issued to which the petitioner has not responded and thereafter the present Ext.P11 show cause notice dated 07.07.2022 has been issued and it appears that the petitioner has not responded to the same, as well, etc., and that, in case, the petitioner is interested to file any objections, he has to send the same by registered post with acknowledgment due within 5 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this judgment. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that it has been held by this Court in decisions as in Vineesh O.K. v. Inspector General of Police, Kannur [2013 (2) KHC 882] that mere show cause notice, in terms of Sec.15 of the KAAP Act, cannot be challenged in writ proceedings unless there are compelling or exceptional case is made out, especially, regarding complete lack of jurisdiction, etc., and that, if at all an order is passed pursuant to the show cause notice, it can be challenged before the Advisory Board, etc. It may be pertinent to refer to para Nos.4 & 5 of the abovesaid decision of this Court in Vineesh’s case supra [2013 (2) KHC 882], which read as follows:-

“4. In Shibu v. State of Kerala, 2009 (4) KHC 901 : 2009 (4) KLT 872 : ILR 2010 (1) Ker. 594, a Division Bench of this Court held that the right to file representation to the Advisory Board under S.15(2) of the KAAPA is an effective alternative remedy and therefore, a Writ Petition challenging the order under S.15(1) of the KAAPA cannot be maintained, unless there are compelling or exceptional reasons. The Division Bench held thus:

“3. Though the right to challenge is couched in the expression “representation”, it is evident that the Advisory Board constituted under S.8 of the KAAPA is obliged to consider such representation in challenge and has the legal competence

to “annul, amend or confirm” the order. In these circumstances, we take the view that though the expression “appeal” is not employed in S.15(2) of the KAAPA, there is an effective right for the aggrieved to c