Kerala High Court
Dhanesh vs State Of Kerala on 21 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:63581
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 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025/30TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 30465 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DHANESH, AGED 40 YEARS
S/O DASAN, CHENNARA VEEDU, NEAR ASMABI COLLEGE,
POZHANKAVU DESOM, PANANGADU VILLAGE,
MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR., PIN - 680685
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SHRI.ANANDHU P.C.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 670002
WP(C) No.30465/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:63581
3 THE CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA,
SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
ELAMAKKARA ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN - 682026
SRI. K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.30465/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:63581
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 22.03.2025
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 Thrissur 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, Thrissur Rural, on 18.02.2025
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, Thirssur
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 while passing the order of externment. The case
registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is crime No.118/2024 of Puthukkad Police Station, alleging
WP(C) No.30465/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:63581
commission of offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4),
191(2), 191(3), 140(1), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 309(6),
351(3), 61(2), 103(1) 238(a), r/w 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for
short "BNS").
4. Heard Sri.M.H.Hanis, 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 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
WP(C) No.30465/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:63581
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.118/2024 of Puthukkad Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3),
140(1), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 309(6), 351(3), 61(2),
103(1) 238(a), r/w 190 of BNS. The date of occurrence of the said case
was on 23.09.2024. In the said case, the petitioner was arrested on
26.09.2024 and subsequently, he was released on bail on 27.01.2025. It
was on 18.02.2025, the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, mooted the
proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act. Thereafter, on
03.03.2025, 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 to the said notice, the petitioner
appeared before the jurisdictional authority on 15.03.2025, but no
written representation was submitted by him. It was after 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
WP(C) No.30465/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:63581
procedural safeguards provided under the KAA(P) Act.
8. The main dispute that revolves around 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 that
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 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.
WP(C) No.30465/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:63581
9. The 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 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
WP(C) No.30465/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:63581
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
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
interdicted from entering the limits of Thrissur 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
ncd
WP(C) No.30465/2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:63581
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30465/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-
3980/2025/TSR DATED 22.03.2025 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
21.04.2025 IN O.P.NO. 91/2025 OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT
