Delay in passing externment orders can sever the necessary link to justify such orders under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against Ext.P2 order of externment dated 4.2.2025, passed against the petitioner by the 3rd respondent, invoking 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 has been interdicted from entering the limits of Pathanamthitta Revenue District for a period of one year from the date of the receipt of the order.

2. Altogether five cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the competent authority for passing Ext.P2 externment order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.809/2024 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191 (3), 190, 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”) and the petitioner was arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case.

3. Heard Sri. Athul Poulose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned by way of this writ petition has been passed on improper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. The learned counsel further submitted that there is an unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the externment order after the date of the last prejudicial activity, and the said long delay will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment. On these premises, the learned counsel urged to set aside the impugned order.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that there is no unreasonable delay in passing the Ext.P2 order of externment. According to him, some minimal delay is inevitable while passing an order, especially when it is the duty of the authority to ensure adherence to the natural justice principles while passing such an order. According to him, the authority needs a reasonable time to collect the details of the cases in which the petitioner was involved, and therefore, the minimum delay in submitting the proposal is quite natural, and the same is only negligible.

6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the records. The records show that for the purpose of initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act, the petitioner was classified as a “known rowdy”, as provided under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. It was the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities that persuaded the authorities to initiate proceedings under the KAA(P) Act. Altogether, five cases formed the basis for passing the impugned order of externment against the petitioner. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.809/2024 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section s 189 (2), 191(2), 191 (3), 190, 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”) and the petitioner was arrayed as the 1st accused in the said.

7. The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 6.7.2024. The petitioner was arrested in the said case on 14.7.2024. Subsequently, he was released on bail on 22.8.2024. Notably, it was thereafter, on 21.11.2024 the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was initiated against him. Virtually, there is a delay of four months in mooting the proposal and around seven months in passing the externment order after the commission of the last prejudicial activity. The said delay can