Delay in initiating externment proceedings severed the connection with the last prejudicial activity, justifying the order's annulment.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of externment dated 17.12.2025 passed against the petitioner under 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 Thrissur Revenue District 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, Thrissur City, submitted a proposal on 25.11.2025 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, Thrissur Range. For initiation of proceedings, the petitioner was classified as “known rowdy” as defined under Section

2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.

3. The authority considered four cases in which the petitioner got involved while passing the order of externment. The last case registered against the petitioner and considered by the authority for passing the externment order is crime No.568/2025 of Wadakkanchery Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 110, 351(3) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

4. Heard Sri.K.K.Subeesh Hrishikesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. According to the counsel, there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal, and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment order is snapped. On the said premise, it was urged that the externment order is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the externment order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no inordinate delay in mooting the proposal, and hence, the petitioner could not be heard to say that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of externment was snapped.

7. On perusal of the records, it is evident that it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities that the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, has mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the petitioner. Altogether, four cases formed the basis for passing the externment order. Out of the said cases, the case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.568/2025 of Wadakkanchery Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 110, 351(3), and 3(5) of BNS .

8. The above-mentioned last prejudicial activity was committed on 26.07.2025, and in the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 02.10.2025. Later, he was released on bail in the said case on 03.10.2025. Thereafter, on 25.11.2025, the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P)Act against the petitioner. Virtually, there is a delay of around four months in mooting the proposal from the date of occurrence of the last prejudicial activity, and there is a delay of 53 days from the date of his release on bail. Of course, the delay in mooting the proposal after the release of the petitioner on bail cannot be viewed lightly.

9. The assertion by the learned Government Pleader that additional time was needed to collect and verify the details of the crimes before forwarding the proposal lacks credibil