The delay in issuing an externment order without justification severed necessary connections with the alleged prejudicial activities, necessitating the order's annulment.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against Ext.P5 order of externment dated 05.11.2025, passed against the petitioner by the 2nd 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 Palakkad Revenue District for a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order. However, the Advisory Board vide its order dated 16.12.2025, modified the said order, and the period of externment was reduced to a period of four months from six months.

2. Altogether, three cases in which the petitioner got involved have been considered by the competent authority for passing Ext.P5 externment order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.650/2025 of Ottapalam Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 196 (1)(a) and 196(1)(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”) and the petitioner was arrayed as the 5th accused in the said case.

3. Heard Sri. Johnson Gomez, 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.P5 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, three 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..650/2025 of Ottapalam Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 196 (1)(a) and 196(1)(b) of BNS .

7. The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 16.07.2025, and the petitioner was arrested on the same day. Subsequently, he was released on bail on 02.08.2025. Notably, it was thereafter, on 14.10.2025 the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was initiated against him. Virtually, there is a delay of around three months in mooting the proposal after the commission of the last prejudicial activity. Likewise, there is a delay of two months and twelve days in mooting the proposal after the release of the petit