Kerala High Court
Randeep.P vs The State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:61597
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1044 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RANDEEP.P
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O RAVEENDRAN, MURIKKOLIVEEDU, ILLATHAZHE,
THIRUVANGADU AMSOM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670103
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR
SRI.C.H.ABDUL RASAC
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
(HOME & VIGILANCE) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
KANNUR THAVAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670001
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KANNUR DISTRICT, KANNUR, PIN - 688001
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
WP(Crl.) No.1044 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:61597
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 14.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1044 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:61597
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
11.02.2025 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 Kannur Revenue District for a
period of one year 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, Kannur City, on 31.12.2024
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, Kannur
Range. For initiation of the said proceedings, the petitioner was
classified as a "known rowdy" as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of
the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
3. The authority considered three cases in which the
petitioner got himself involved for passing the order of externment.
The case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last
WP(Crl.) No.1044 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:61597
prejudicial activity is crime No.1969/2024 of Angamali Police
Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections
137(2), 332(b), 103(1), 189(2), 140(1), 127(2), 189(4), 191(2),
191(3), 190, 249(a), 115(2), 118(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for
short "BNS").
4. Heard Sri.Santhosh Kumar T. P., 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, Ext.P1
order was passed in a casual manner, and it was without assigning
any reason, the jurisdictional authority passed an order of
externment for a maximum period of one year. The learned counsel
urged that when the maximum period of externment was ordered, it
was incumbent upon the authority to show the reasons for the same.
Nevertheless, no convincing reason whatsoever has been assigned
by the authority for passing the maximum period of externment, and
hence, the impugned order warrants interference.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted
WP(Crl.) No.1044 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:61597
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 nothing wrong in passing an order of
externment for one year if the circumstances warrant it, and
therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order.
7. A perusal of the records reveals that it was after
considering the involvement of the petitioner in three cases
registered against him, the proceedings under KAA(P) Act were
initiated against him. Out of the three cases considered by the
jurisdictional authority, the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity is crime No.1969/2024 of Angamali Police
Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections
137(2), 332(b), 103(1), 189(2), 140(1), 127(2), 189(4), 191(2),
191(3), 190, 249(a), 115(2), 118(1) of BNS. The date of occurrence
of the said case was on 04.09.2024. In the said case, the petitioner
was arrested on 19.09.2024 and was released on bail on the same
day. It was on 31.12.2024, the District Police Chief, Kannur City,
mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act.
Thereafter, on 25.01.2025, the jurisdictional authority issued a
notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why an
order of externment should not be passed against him. In response
WP(Crl.) No.1044 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:61597
to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the jurisdictional
authority on 05.02.2025, and submitted a written representation. It
was after considering his written representation and hearing him in
detail, Ext.P1 order was passed. The sequence of events narrated
above clearly reveals that there is no delay either in mooting the
proposal or in passing Ext.P1 order. Similarly, the records reveal
that the impugned order was passed after scrupulously complying
with the procedural safeguards provided under the KAA(P) Act.
8. The main dispute in this writ petition is with respect to
the period of externment ordered by the jurisdictional authority. As
already stated, the main grievance of the petitioner is that, it was
without assigning any reason, the maximum period of externment
was ordered. While considering the said contention, it is to be noted
that the scope of interference by a court of law in the subjective as
well as objective satisfaction arrived on by the jurisdictional
authority which passed an order of externment is too limited.
However, an order of externment certainly has a heavy bearing on
the personal as well as fundamental rights of an individual. Such an
order would certainly deprive a citizen concerned of his
fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of
India. By such an order, he is prevented from entering his house and
from residing with his family members during the subsistence of the
WP(Crl.) No.1044 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:61597
order as well. Therefore, while prescribing the maximum period of
externment, the jurisdictional authority must apply its mind
properly, and the order must reflect the necessity of passing the
maximum period of externment. In other words, the order should
provide reasons for invoking the maximum period of externment. In
short, the jurisdictional authority shall exercise its power cautiously,
though the authority is clothed with the power to order a maximum
period of externment, subject to the restriction that it shall not be
more than one year.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak S/o Laxman
Dongre v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2023) 14 SCC
707], while dealing with a preventive detention order passed under
the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 held that:
"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
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
WP(Crl.) No.1044 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:61597
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."
10. Moreover, this Court in Dinchu Mohanan v. State of
Kerala and another [2015 (2) KHC 101] 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. Keeping in mind the
above propositions of law, while coming to the impugned order, it
can be seen that nowhere in the said order, the reasons for imposing
the maximum period of externment are adverted to. A bare perusal
of the impugned order reveals that it does not disclose any
application of mind on this aspect. Therefore, we are of the view
that the impugned order requires modification regarding the
duration of the period of externment.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part and Ext. P1
order is modified to the extent that the writ petitioner shall be
WP(Crl.) No.1044 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:61597
interdicted from entering the limits of Kannur Revenue District, for
a period of six months from the date of receipt of Ext.P1 order.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.1044 of 2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:61597
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1044/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.A324173/2024/KR PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 11.02.2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN
CRIME.NO.171/2018 OF THALLASSERY
POLICE STATION
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.976/2018 OF THALLASSERY POLICE
STATION
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1969/2024 OF ANGAMALY POLICE
STATION
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
02.05.2025
