Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 42557
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
ASKER ALI
– Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 873 2022
P.MOHAMED SABAH, LIBIN STANLEY, R.GAYATHRI, SADIK ISMAYIL, SAIPOOJA M.MAHIN, HAMZA
An externment order requires a clear link between the order and recent activities; delays that sever this link render the order invalid.
Headnote:
Externment - Writ Petition - Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act - Sec.15(1) - The court quashed the externment order due to inordinate delay in its issuance, which severed the necessary link between past actions and the need for prohibitory measures.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an externment order issued under Sec.15(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social (Activities) Prevention Act, prohibiting him from entering Wayanad District for six months based on his criminal history.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay between the last criminal action and the externment order was inordinate and unexplained, thereby breaking the causal link necessary to justify the order.
Issues: Whether the delay in issuing the externment order after the last prejudicial activity was unjustifiable and if the Sec.107 Cr.P.C. proceedings sufficed to prevent further offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unexplained delay in the externment order violated procedural requirements and undermined its justification under Sec.15(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act.
Final Decision: The externment order was quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
The prayers in the instant W.P.(Crl.), seeking for quashment in relation to an externment order passed against the petitioner herein, as to the provisions of Sec.15(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social (Activities) Prevention Act (KAAPA), 2007 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’ for short), are as follows:-
"i) Issue a Writ of certiorari and therefore call for all records pertaining to exhibit P1 order and quash the same as illegal And
ii) Grant such other reliefs that this Honourable Court deem fit and proper to grant in the interest of justice."
2. Heard Smt.Saipooja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A. Anas, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents.
3. The order under challenge in this writ petition (criminal) is the impugned Ext.P1 order dated 09.06.2022, issued by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kannur Range, under Sec.15(1) of the Act, by which it has been ordered that the petitioner, who is an ordinary resident of Wayanad District, shall not enter into the limits of the said district for a period of six months therefrom, in order to prevent him from further prejudicial anti- social activities, as understood in Sec.2(a) of the Act.
4. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of this case, are as follows: The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in three crimes, the details of which are given in Ext.P.1 order as well as in para No.6 on pages 2 & 3 of the counter affidavit dated 02.11.2022, filed by the 2nd respondent.
5. Since there are no factual disputes regarding the said case details, the abovesaid contents of para 6 of the abovesaid counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent are extracted hereunder, for easy perusal:
“6. The following three cases were considered for action against
(i) Crime No. 593/15 of Meenangadi Police statio
(ii) Crime No. 96/2019 of Karippur Police station registered u/s 365, 392, 506(i) r/w 34 IPC (Altered to 120 B, 365, 395, 411): The petitioner is arrayed as third accused in the above case for the offence of snatching the gold of 300 gms being carried by the defacto complainant who alighted from a flight landed at Karippur Airport from Sharjah on 04/07/2019. The case was charge sheeted on 03/11/2020 and pending before the Addl. District & Sessions Court-II, Manjeri as SC 629/2021.
(iii) Crime No. 23/2022 of Padinjarathara Police station registered u/s 22(b), 29, 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act 1985: The petitioner is arrayed as A12 in the above case and on10.01.2022, the accused were found in possession of MDMA, Ganja in a drug party conducted in a Resort. The fact can be discernible from the FIR of the case (Exhibit P3) and remand report (Exhibit P4).”
6. Going by the details of the abovesaid three crimes, there is no serious dispute that the petitioner would fulfill the definitional parameters of “known-rowdy”, as understood in Sec.2(p)(iii) read with Sec.2(t) of the Act.
7. According to the respondents, the last case registered against the petitioner out of the three crimes mentioned above, is the one
