IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN TH TUESDAY, THE 27 DAY OF MAY 2025 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1947 WP(CRL.) NO. 490 OF 2025 PETITIONER:

RAMVILAS AGED 28 YEARS S/O RAMESH, KARUTHAVEEDU,KALARIPARAMBU, PAPPINIVATTOM PO, MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680685 BY ADVS.

K.S.ARUN KUMAR VIJAY SANKAR V.H.

DEVARAJ SUBRAMANIAN ASWATHY B. KRISHNA RESPONDENTS:

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THRISSUR DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES RD, KALYAN NAGAR,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680003

2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR RURAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RURAL CAMP OFFICE, CIVIL LINES RD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680003

3 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL THRISSUR, HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR - 680001

4 STATE OF KERALA REP BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (HOME & VIGILANCE) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 BY ADVS.

ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR HEARING ON 26.05.2025, THE COURT ON 27.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 order of externment dated 17.02.2025 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 was interdicted from entering the limits of the Revenue District, Thrissur, 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, the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural submitted a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the authorised officer, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range. For initiation of the said proceedings, the petitioner has been classified as a “known rowdy”

as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.

3. The authority considered 7 cases in which the petitioner was involved for passing the order of externment. The case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity committed by the petitioner is crime No.789/2024 of Mathilakam Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110 r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”) and the petitioner is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case.

4. Heard Sri. K.S. Arun Kumar, 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 the 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 as well as in passing the order of externment, and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment is snapped. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned 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 either in mooting the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act or in passing the impugned order, and hence, the petitioner could not contend that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of externment was snapped. It was further submitted that all the procedural safeguards were duly complied with while passing the order of externment against the petitioner, and hence, no interference is warranted.

7. On perusal of the records, it is gatherable that the last prejudic