[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Jithesh @Vava vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:93001
WP(Crl.) No.1491 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1491 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
JITHESH @VAVA
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAN ATTAPALLAM, PAMBAMPALLAM, THENUR, WALAYAR,
PALAKKAD,, PIN - 678624
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ROHIT BABEN
SHRI.R.AVINASH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA (HOME DEPARTMENT). SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
TRISSUR RANGE, RANGE OFFICE, CHEMPUKAVU, THRISSUR,, PIN -
680001
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
PALAKKAD S.P OFFICE, PALAKKAD,, PIN - 678001
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.K.A.ANAS, P.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:93001
WP(Crl.) No.1491 of 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against Ext.P4 order of
externment dated 10.09.2025, passed against the petitioner by the
2nd respondent, invoking 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 Palakkad for a period of six months from
the date of the receipt of the order.
2. For passing the externment order, the competent
authority considered four cases in which the petitioner was involved.
Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity, which was considered by the judicial authority for
passing Ext.P4 order is Crime No.364/2025 of Walayar Police Station,
registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections
126(2) and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
3. Heard Sri. Navaneeth.N.Nath, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned
Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
2025:KER:93001
order impugned by way of this writ petition has been passed on
improper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel,
there is an unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal as well as in
passing the order of externment after the date of the last prejudicial
activity. The learned counsel pointed out that the said long delay in
submitting the proposal and in passing the externment order will
certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and
the purpose of the externment. On these premises, the learned
counsel urged to set aside the impugned order.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that there is no unreasonable delay in passing the Ext.P4 order of
externment. According to him, some minimal delay is inevitable while
passing an order, especially when it is the duty of the authority to
ensure adherence to the natural justice principles while passing such
an order. According to him, the authority needs a reasonable time to
collect the details of the cases in which the petitioner was involved,
and therefore, the minimum delay in submitting the proposal is quite
natural, and the same is only negligible.
6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused
the records. The records show that the petitioner was classified as a
"known rowdy", as provided under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.
2025:KER:93001
As evident from the records, it was after considering his recurrent
involvement in criminal activities that the sponsoring authority had
recommended for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act
against the petitioner. Admittedly, the case registered against the
petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.364/2025 of Walayar Police Station, registered alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2) and 115(2)
of BNS and he was arrayed as the sole accused in the said case. The
incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on
29.04.2025. The petitioner was arrested in the said case on
31.05.2025, and released on bail on the same day. Notably, it was
thereafter, on 22.08.2025, the proposal for initiation of proceedings
under the KAA(P) Act was initiated against him. Virtually, there is a
delay of around four months in forwarding the proposal after the date
of commission of the last prejudicial activity.
7. While considering the contention of the petitioner,
regarding the delay that occurred in submitting the proposal and in
passing the order, it cannot be ignored that an order under Section 15
of the KAA(P)Act has a significant impact on the personal right of an
individual. So such an order could not be passed in a casual manner;
instead, it can only be passed on credible materials after arriving at
the requisite objective and subjective satisfaction. However, there
exists no inflexible rule requiring that an externment order has to be
2025:KER:93001
passed within a specific time frame following the last prejudicial
activity. However, when there is undue delay in forwarding the
proposal and passing the externment order, the same would
undermine its validity, particularly when no convincing or plausible
explanation is offered for the delay.
8. Keeping in mind the above settled principles, while
coming to the facts in the present case, it can be seen that, as already
stated, there is a delay of around four months in mooting the proposal
after the date of commission of the last prejudicial activity. The said
delay assumes significance, particularly since the petitioner got bail
after two days of the commission of the said act. The said delay
cannot be justified by saying that the same was necessary for
observing natural justice principles. The assertion that additional time
was needed to gather the details of the crimes before forwarding the
proposal lacks credibility. In the case at hand, only four cases formed
the basis for proposing and issuing the externment order. The details
of those cases were readily available and could have been obtained
without delay, given the technological upgradation attained by the
Law Enforcement Authority. Therefore, we are of the considered view
that the delay in mooting the proposal is unreasonable and
unjustifiable. If the Superintendent of Police was having bona fide
apprehension regarding the repetition of anti-social activities by the
petitioner, definitely, he would have acted swiftly and with great
2025:KER:93001
alacrity in submitting the proposal immediately after the last
prejudicial activity. Therefore, we are of the view that the delay in
forwarding the proposal will certainly snap the live link between the
last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the impugned order.
9. Moreover, from the submissions made by the learned
Government Pleader and the memo filed by him, it is discernible that
on 31.10.2025, the petitioner was convicted in one of the cases
registered against him and presently he is undergoing a sentence in
jail. Evidently, the petitioner was convicted after the issuance of
Ext.P4 externment order. As the petitioner is undergoing a sentence
in jail, in pursuance of the conviction passed against him in a case, an
externment order is not at all necessary.
Resultantly, Ext.P4 order is set aside, and the petition stands
allowed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
sab JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
2025:KER:93001
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1491 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS
DATED 22.08.2025
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE3RD RESPONDENT, BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 22.08.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOWCASE NOTICE
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER
DATED 26.08.2025
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTERNMENT ORDER
BEARING NO. B3-17994/2025/TSR ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.09.2025
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO 1738-39/2024 DATED
21.03.2024
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP CRL
NO.232 OF 2023 K. SURESH KUMAR V/S
STATE OF KERALA & OTHER DATED
10.07.2023
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
22.08.2024 IN WP CRL NO.511/2024
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
09.09.2024 IN WP(CRL) NO. 884/2024
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
31.10.2024 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
