Kerala High Court
Abdul Razak vs State Of Kerala on 9 June, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:39991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1152 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ABDUL RAZAK
AGED 38 YEARS
PUTHANPURAKAL HOUSE, DIVANJIMOOLA DESOM,
VELIYANOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR - 680021
BY ADVS.
SHRI.LLOYD JOHN
SHRI.JERRY MATHEW
SHRI.REGHU SREEDHARAN
SHRI.JUSTIN K.K.
SHRI.RAMEEZ M. AZEEZ
SMT.DEVIKA K.R.
SMT.DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT
OF KERALA (HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
2 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR, CHEMBOOKAVU - 680020
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
THRISSUR CITY, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR - 680631
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
STATION HOUSE OFFICER TOWN EAST POLICE STATION
THRISSUR, VELIYANOOR - 680001
WP(Crl)No.1152 of 2024 :2:
2025:KER:39991
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.06.2025, THE COURT ON 09.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl)No.1152 of 2024 :3:
2025:KER:39991
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 26.07.2024 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 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 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 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 six cases in which the petitioner got
himself involved in passing the order of externment. The case registered
2025:KER:39991
against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.266/2024 of Thrissur Town West Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Heard Sri. Lloyd John, 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,
2025:KER:39991
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 six cases registered under the IPC,
the proceedings under the KAA(P) Act were initiated against him. Out of
the six cases considered by the jurisdictional authority, the case registered
with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.266/2024 of
Thrissur Town West Police Station, alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) of the IPC. The said last
prejudicial activity was committed on 11.03.2024. He was arrested in the
said case on 03.04.2024 and released on bail on the same day. It was on
09.07.2024, the District Police Chief, Thirssur City, mooted the proposal
for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act. Thereafter, on 18.07.2024,
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 the petitioner an
opportunity of being heard, he was further directed to appear in person
before the jurisdictional authority on 25.07.2024. However, the petitioner
neither appeared nor filed any written representation before the
2025:KER:39991
jurisdictional authority. The sequence of events narrated above clearly
reveals that there is no inordinate delay either in mooting the proposal or
in passing Ext.P1 order. We are not oblivious of the fact that there is a
delay of around four months in forwarding the proposal for initiation of
proceedings under the KAA(P) Act after the last prejudicial activity.
However, as an externment order under the KAA(P) Act is having a
significant bearing on the personal as well as fundamental rights of an
individual, some minimum time is required to collect the details of the
cases in which the petitioner is involved and to comply with the
procedural formalities. Therefore, we are of the view that the minimum
delay occurred in this case is only justifiable, and it could not be said that
the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the
impugned order is snapped. Moreover, unlike in the case of an order of
detention passed under Section 3 of the KAA(P) Act, even if some delay
has occurred in passing an order of externment, the same has no serious
bearing as the consequences of both the orders are different. Because an
order of detention is a grave deprivation of the personal liberty of the
person detained. We are cognizant that Section 15 of the KAA(P) Act also
visits the person concerned with an intrusion to his personal liberty within
the limit of Article 21, especially when the said order restrains a citizen
2025:KER:39991
from his right to travel in any part of India. However, when a detention
order under Section 3 is compared with an order of externment passed
under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act, the latter visits a person with
lesser deprivation of liberty. Therefore, the nature of proceedings under
Section 3 and Section 15 are inherently different. In this regard, we are
fortified by the decision in Stalin C.V. v. State of Kerala and others
[2011 (1) KHC 852]. Moreover, an order under Section 15 of the
KAA(P) Act can be treated only as equivalent to a condition imposed in a
bail order, especially when the same only curtails the movement of the
petitioner. Consequently, we have no hesitation in holding that there is no
inordinate delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the order of
detention in this case.
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
2025:KER:39991
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.
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
2025:KER:39991
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 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
2025:KER:39991
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 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/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
2025:KER:39991
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1152/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF EXTERNMENT NO.
B3-13276/2024/TSR DATED 26.07.2024 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 15(1)(A) OF
KERALA ANTI SOCIAL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION)
ACT 2007
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.
SB7024/2024/RC(8) DATED 22.03.2024
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SB-7024/2024/RC(8)
ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 HE LETTER BEARING NO. SB7024/2024/RC(8)
DATED 22.03.2024
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.07.2024
NO. 102/KAAPA/SB/RC/2024
