Kerala High Court
Suhail V.M vs State Of Kerala on 4 June, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:39035
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 14TH JYAISHTA,
1947
WP(C) NO. 11405 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SUHAIL V.M., AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL MAJEED V.M., VILAKKUMADATHIL HOUSE,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 676122
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.R.DHANIL
SRI.S.NIDHEESH
SMT.SENITTA P. JOJO
SMT.VIDHUNA NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY GENERAL OF POLICE,
RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 680001
3 THE CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY BOARD
KERALA ANTISOCIAL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT (KAAPA),
SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD, VIVEKNANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,KERALA, PIN - 682026
BY ADV. SRI. K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.06.2025, THE COURT ON 04.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No. 11405 OF 2025 :2:
2025:KER:39035
"C.R."
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 29.10.2024 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 Malappuram 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, Malappuram 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 the
said proceedings, the petitioner was classified as a "known goonda" as
defined under Section 2(o)(ii) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
3. The authority considered two cases in which the petitioner
was involved for passing the order of externment. The case registered
2025:KER:39035
against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.1249/2023 of Meenangadi Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the petitioner is arrayed as the
1st accused in the said case.
4. Heard Sri. M.R. Dhanil, 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
2025:KER:39035
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 two cases registered
under NDPS Act, the proceedings under KAA(P) Act were initiated
against him. Out of the two cases considered by the jurisdictional
authority, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity
is crime No.1249/2023 of Meenangadi Police Station, alleging
commission of offences punishable under Section 22(b) of the NDPS
Act. In the said case, the petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed
with intermediate quantity of methamphetamine on 29.11.2023.
Subsequently, he was released on bail on 01.01.2024. It was on
08.10.2024, the District Police Chief, Malappuram, mooted the proposal
for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act. Thereafter, on
16.10.2024, 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 the said notice, in order to afford
2025:KER:39035
the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, he was further directed to
appear in person before the jurisdictional authority on 24.10.2024. In
response to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the
jurisdictional authority on 24.10.2024, 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 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 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
2025:KER:39035
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.
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
2025:KER:39035
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 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
2025:KER:39035
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 Malappuram Revenue District, for a period of
six months from the date of receipt of Ext.P1 order.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
2025:KER:39035
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11405/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RANGE OFFICE,
THRISSUR DATED 29/10/2024
