Kerala High Court
Devanath vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:64844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 3RD BHADRA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 940 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DEVANATH
AGED 21 YEARS
KUNDANY VEEDU, THERAMBAM DESOM, MADAKKATHARA
VILLAGE & P.O, THRISSUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 680651
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
SMT.SAILAKSHMI MENON
SMT. AASHI K. SHAJAN
SHRI.RAVISANKAR C.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & STATE POLICE CHIEF
KERALA POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
4 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
680001
WP(Crl.) No.940 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:64844
5 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
CITY POLICE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680001
6 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680651
BY ADVS.
K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.940 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:64844
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging an order of externment dated
26.12.2024 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 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 City 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 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 six cases in which the petitioner
got involved while passing the order of externment. The last case
considered by the authorised officer for passing the impugned
order of externment is crime No.741/2024 of Pattambi Police
WP(Crl.) No.940 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:64844
Station registered against the petitioner alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 410(3), 110, 238 r/w 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").\
4. Heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, 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 impugned order of detention was passed on improper
consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. The
learned counsel submitted that so far the impugned order of
externment has not been served on him and hence, he is
handicapped from filing an effective representation before the
Advisory Board as well as the Government. According to the
counsel, from some sources, the petitioner came to know that the
stand taken by the authorities is that a copy of the externment
order has been affixed on the conspicuous part of the petitioner's
residence by the Station House Officer, Mannuthi Police Station.
According to the counsel, after passing such an order, it was
incumbent upon the authorities to ensure that the impugned order
is personally served on the externee. However, the same is not
done in this case, and hence the order itself is vitiated and liable to
be set aside.
WP(Crl.) No.940 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:64844
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority
after proper application of mind and after entering on the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the
learned Government Pleader, the externment order passed on the
detenu was executed by affixing it at the petitioner's residence by
the Inspector, SHO of Mannuthi Police Station and hence, the
contention of the petitioner that the order was not duly served on
him will not be sustained.
7. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that
the main dispute that revolves around is with respect to the service
of the externment order passed against the petitioner.
Undisputably, when an order of externment is passed, it is the duty
of the authorities to ensure that the said order is duly served on
the externee. Only when such an order is served, the externee can
file an effective representation before the Government as well as
the Advisory Board. Moreover, unless it is served, the externee
could not be asked to comply with the order. Keeping in mind the
above, while reverting to the facts in the present case, it can be
seen that even the respondents do not have a case that the
externment order was served personally on the petitioner. Instead,
what the respondents contend is that a copy of the externment
order was affixed on the conspicuous part of the externee's
WP(Crl.) No.940 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:64844
residence. However, such a mode of service is not provided in the
KAA(P) Act. Considering the serious impact of the order, it was
obligatory on the part of the authorities to serve the externment
order personally on the petitioner. Moreover, it is pertinent to note
that the available records clearly show that during the relevant
period, the externee was appearing before the Police Station
periodically in compliance with the directions in the bail order
granting bail to him in the last prejudicial activity. Therefore, it was
very well possible to serve the copy of the externment order to the
petitioner personally. Notably, the authorities do not have a case
that, at any point of time, the petitioner refused to receive the
externment order when the same was tendered to him. Therefore,
we are of the considered view that the impugned order will not be
sustained.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed, and the
externment order dated 26.12.2024 passed against the petitioner
stands set aside.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.940 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:64844
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 940/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE
NOTICE VIDE. NO. B3-22655/2024/TSR
DATED 10.12.2024 TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.219/2025 OF MANNUTHI POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
02.06.2025 IN W.P(CRL.) NO. 670/2025
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
