Kerala High Court
Abdul Rasaq P.S vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
WP (Crl.) No. 754 of 2025 1 2025:KER:49704
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 754 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ABDUL RASAQ P.S.
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMEDKUNJI, PARAKKAL HOUSE,
PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670561
BY ADVS.
SHRI.E.A.HARIS
SHRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER
SRI.MUHAMMED YASIL
SMT.AAGI JOHNY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KANNUR
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KANNUR, KERALA, PIN - 670002
3 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, KANNUR
RANGE OFFICE, KANNUR, PIN - 670001
WP (Crl.) No. 754 of 2025 2 2025:KER:49704
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, VALAPATTANAM,
KANNUR, PIN - 670010
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
SRI. K.A. ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 02.07.2025, THE COURT ON 08.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP (Crl.) No. 754 of 2025 3 2025:KER:49704
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of externment passed by the 3rd respondent, in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "KAA(P) Act" for brevity).
2. The records placed before this Court reveal that the impugned action was initiated on account of the alleged involvement of the petitioner in seven criminal cases, namely:
a) Crime Nos. 262 of 2019 and 1229 of 2019 of Valapattanam Police Station, both registered under Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 ("KPRB & RRS Act"),
b) Crime No. 546 of 2022 of Kannapuram Police Station, registered inter alia under Sections 283, 427, 120(B) r/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3 r/w. Section 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 ("PDPP Act"),
c) Crime No. 547 of 2022 of Kannapuram Police Station, similarly registered under the IPC and PDPP Act, WP (Crl.) No. 754 of 2025 4 2025:KER:49704
d) Crime No. 999 of 2023 of Valapattanam Police Station, registered under Section 379 of the IPC and Section 20 of the KPRB & RRS Act,
e) Crime No. 545 of 2022 of Kannapuram Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 149, and 153 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and
f) Crime No. 571 of 2024 of the Valapattanam Police Station, registered under Sections 121(1), 109(1), and 249 r/w. Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. A proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kannur, on 16.12.2024, before the 3rd respondent seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 15 of the KAA(P) Act, on account of his involvement in the above 7 crimes and by stating that he has acquired the qualification of being classified as a "known goonda". A show cause notice was issued, and the petitioner was heard. Thereafter, the impugned order was issued on 12.02.2025, interdicting the petitioner from entering the limits of the Kannur Revenue District. He was also directed to disclose his place of residence and to report to the jurisdictional Police Station.
4. Sri. M.A. Ahammad Saheer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, advanced the following submissions:
(i) It is submitted that there is an unexplained and unreasonable delay in passing the externment order. The last prejudicial activity was on WP (Crl.) No. 754 of 2025 5 2025:KER:49704 26.07.2024, the petitioner had surrendered on 21.11.2024, and he was released on bail. The final report was laid on 30.11.2024, but the proposal for externment (Ext.P1) was submitted only on 16.12.2024.
(ii) It is contended that in two cases, Crime Nos. 262 of 2019 and 1229 of 2019, the petitioner had pleaded guilty and was only fined. However, before the 3rd respondent, only the case status reports were produced. The learned counsel refers to the case status printouts and submits that the fine of Rs.8,000/- was manually inserted into the order. The fact that the petitioner had pleaded guilty and was not convicted after trial was allegedly not taken into account by the externment authority.
(iii) The learned counsel highlights that proceedings under Section 126 of the BNS were also initiated against the petitioner. However, these proceedings were quashed by this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this court.
(iv) Lastly, it is submitted that certain documents supplied to the petitioner were illegible, thereby prejudicially affecting his ability to effectively respond to the show-cause notice and present his defence. A statement has been filed by the respondents denying these allegations.
5. In response, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that seven criminal cases were taken into account to classify the petitioner as a WP (Crl.) No. 754 of 2025 6 2025:KER:49704 "known goonda", including three under the Sand Act, two under the PDPP Act, and one under the Explosive Substances Act. Regarding the last alleged incident, the petitioner was arrested on 21.11.2024 and released on 05.12.2024. The sponsorship report was submitted promptly on 16.12.2024. It is further submitted that a show cause notice was issued on 25.01.2025, the petitioner was heard on 05.02.2025, and the externment order was issued on 12.02.2025. Though the original externment was for one year, the Advisory Board, after due consideration, reduced the period to six months. On the issue of conviction on a plea of guilty, the learned Public Prosecutor points out that under Section 264 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which corresponds to Section 241 of the Cr.P.C., even a plea of guilty constitutes a valid conviction. Reliance is placed on the decision in Sameena Beevi v. State of Kerala.1 Regarding the alleged delay, it is contended that there was no real delay, since the petitioner was in custody until 05.12.2024, and the report was submitted just 10 days later. Reference is made to the judgment in Stalin C.V v. State of Kerala & Others2, wherein this Court observed that some degree of delay is unavoidable given the requirement of adhering to principles of natural justice before passing an externment order. As to the allegation of illegible documents, it is submitted that no such grievance was raised by the petitioner at any stage, including before the Advisory Board. Even otherwise, relying on the judgment in Binoy @ Gillappi v.
1 [2014 (4) KLT 874] 2 [2011 (1) KHC 852] WP (Crl.) No. 754 of 2025 7 2025:KER:49704
State of Kerala & Others3, it is submitted that proceedings under Section 15 of the KAA(P) Act are less stringent than those under Section 3(1) of the said Act. Finally, it is submitted that the quashing or initiation of proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. has no bearing on the validity of externment proceedings under the KAA(P) Act, the objective of which is to prevent the externee from continuing with prejudicial activities.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records.
7. The first contention advanced by the learned counsel is that there is no proximate or live link between the order of externment and the last prejudicial act. As stated earlier, the last prejudicial act committed by the petitioner was on 26.07.2024. In the externment order, all that is stated is that there is no appreciable delay in submitting the report of sponsorship, which was on 16.12.2024. The show cause notice was issued on 25.01.2025, and the petitioner was heard on 05.02.2025. Finally, the orders were passed on 12.02.2025. In other words, the sponsorship report was made only after 4½ months, and the externment order was issued after more than 6 months. Under Section 15 of the KAA(P) Act, the maximum period of detention that can be undergone by the externee is only up to one year. It is also interesting to note that the Advisory Board interfered with the order of externment and reduced the period to 6 3 [2018 (1) KHC 348] WP (Crl.) No. 754 of 2025 8 2025:KER:49704 months, having regard to the facts and circumstances. Viewed in that light, the long period of more than six months from the last prejudicial act to the passing of the order and more than four months in submitting the report of sponsorship cannot be said to be a reasonable delay. Much more alacrity ought to have been shown if the intention was to prevent the petitioner from perpetrating the offences.
8. There is yet another matter. In the case on hand, the 3rd respondent imposed the maximum period and stated that the same was required to deter the petitioner from perpetrating prejudicial activities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak S/o. Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra and Others4, while considering the issue as to application of mind while imposing the maximum period of externment in a matter concerning an order passed under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, held as under:
"On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that while passing an order under Section 56, the competent authority must mention the area or District or Districts, in respect of which the order has been made. Moreover, the competent authority is required to specify the period for which the restriction will remain in force. The maximum period provided for is of two years. Therefore, an application of mind on the part of the competent authority is required for deciding the duration of the restraint order under Section 56. On the basis of the objective assessment of the material on record, the authority has to record it subjective satisfaction that the restriction should be imposed for a specific period. When the 4 [(2023) 14 SCC 707] WP (Crl.) No. 754 of 2025 9 2025:KER:49704 competent authority passes an order for the maximum permissible period of two years, the order of externment must disclose an application of mind by the competent authority and the order must record its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing an order of externment for the maximum period of two years which is based on material on record. Careful perusal of the impugned order of externment dated 15th December, 2020 shows that it does not disclose any application of mind on this aspect. It does not record the subjective satisfaction of respondent No.2 on the basis of material on record that the order of externment should be for the maximum period of two years. If the order of externment for the maximum permissible period of two years is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity extending the order of externment to the maximum permissible period, it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.
9. As held by the Apex Court, when the competent authority passes an order for the maximum permissible period, the order of externment must disclose an application of mind by the competent authority and the order must record its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing an order of externment for the maximum period. If the order of externment for the maximum permissible period of one year is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of imposing the maximum permissible period, it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.
WP (Crl.) No. 754 of 2025 10 2025:KER:49704
10. A Division Bench of this Court in Dinchu Mohanan v. State Of
Kerala5 has held that the court is empowered to annul, amend, or confirm the order of externment passed under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act.
11. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the period of externment can be limited up to 08.07.2025. We also think it expedient to impose certain conditions for limiting the period of externment, by directing the petitioner to report before the Station House Officer, Valapattanam Police Station, on all Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. till the period of externment passed in terms of Ext. P3 is over.
Resultantly, Ext. P3 order is modified by reducing the period of externment ordered as per Ext. P3 order passed by the 3rd respondent up to 08.07.2025. This shall be subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Station House Officer, Valapattanam Police Station, on all Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. till the period of externment under Ext. P3 is over.
The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.V. JAYAKUMAR,
APM JUDGE
5
[2015 (2) KHC 101]
WP (Crl.) No. 754 of 2025 11 2025:KER:49704
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 754/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25.01.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
25.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2025
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2024
IN CRL.M.C. NO. 9274 OF 2024 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS SERVED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2025
IN O.P NO. 57 OF 2025 ON THE FILES OF
ADVISORY BOARD UNDER THE KERALA ANTI SOCIAL
ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT 2007