Unreasonable delay in externment proceedings can sever the connection to criminal activities and warrant modification of the order.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against Ext.P4 order of externment dated 24.11.2025, 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 the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, for a period of six months 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 that the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, submitted a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15 (1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act before the authorised officer, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam Range. For initiation of proceedings, the petitioner was classified as a “known rowdy” as defined under Section 2 (p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.

3. Altogether three cases in which the petitioner got involved have been considered by the competent authority for passing Ext.P4 externment order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1362/2025 of Kuruppampadi Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 08 (2), 308(3) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”) and the petitioner was arrayed as the

2nd accused in the said case.

4. Heard Sri. E. A. Haris, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. 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 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 delay will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order warrants interference.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the externment order. According to the Public Prosecutor, 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. It was further submitted that 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.

7. As already stated altogether, three cases formed the basis for passing Ext.P4 externment order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1362/2025 of Kuruppampadi Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 08 (2), 308(3) r/w 3(5) of BNS and the petitioner was arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said. The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 16.04.2025. The petitioner was arrested in the said case on 11.09.2025. Subsequently, he was released on bail on 30.09.2025. Notably, it was thereafter, on 13.10.2025, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was initiated against him. Subsequently, on 24.11.2025, the externemnt order was passed. Virtually, there is a