Kerala High Court
Najeeb vs Deputy Inspector General Of Police on 10 June, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:40455
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 431 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1692/2024 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER:
NAJEEB
AGED 34 YEARS
SON OF IRBAHIMKUTTY, MULLAPPATT HOUSE,
VETTOM PALLIKKPURAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 676102
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
SHRI.IRFAN ZIRAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR - 680001
2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
UP HILL POST, MALAPPURAM - 676505
3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM - 676101
4 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KALAPAKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM - 679584
5 ADVISORY BOARD
CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE KERALA ANTI SOCIAL
ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT 2007 REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, 'SREENIVAS', VIVEKANANDA ROAD, PADAM ROAD,
ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI - 682724
WP(Crl) No. 431/2025 :2:
2025:KER:40455
BY ADV.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.06.2025, THE COURT ON 10.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl) No. 431/2025 :3:
2025:KER:40455
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, challenging Ext.P2 order of externment dated 03.03.2025 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
Malappuram Revenue District for a period of six months from the date of
the receipt of the order. However, the said order of externment under
Section 15(1)(a) was modified by the KAA(P) Act Advisory Board to one
under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act, and the petitioner was directed to
appear before the Station House Officer, Tirur Police Station on every
Sunday between 9.00 to and 11.00 a.m. for six months from the date of
receipt of the externment 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
initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) of
the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the authorised officer, the Deputy Inspector
WP(Crl) No. 431/2025 :4:
2025:KER:40455
General of Police, Thrissur Range. For initiation of proceedings, the
petitioner was classified as a "known goonda" as defined under Section
2(o) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
3. The authority considered three cases in which the petitioner
got himself involved for passing the order of externment. The last case
considered by the authority for passing the impugned order of
externment is crime No.1692/2024 of Tirur Police Station registered
alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 303(2) r/w
3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS") and Section 20, 23 of
Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act
(for short "KPRB & RRS Act").
4. Heard Sri.P.M.Ziraj, 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
Ext.P2 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without
proper application of mind. According to the counsel, there is inordinate
delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the order of
externment, and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity
and the purpose of the externment order is snapped. The learned
WP(Crl) No. 431/2025 :5:
2025:KER:40455
counsel further urged that the cases considered by the jurisdictional
authority for classifying the externee as a "known goonda" are not
qualified ones. According to the counsel, the externee will not fall under
the definition of a depredator of the environment, and consequently, he
neither falls under the definition of "goonda" nor under the definition of
"known goonda" provided under the KAA(P) Act and therefore, an order
of externment could not be passed against him.
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 arriving on the requisite objective as
well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government
Pleader, there is no inordinate delay in passing the externment order, and
hence, the petitioner could not be heard to say that the live link between
the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of externment was snapped.
It was further submitted that the petitioner will certainly come within the
definition of depredator of the environment, and will definitely fall under
the definition of "known goonda".
7. On perusal of the records, it is gatherable that it was after
considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal
WP(Crl) No. 431/2025 :6:
2025:KER:40455
activities, the District Police Chief, Malappuram has mooted the proposal
for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act against the petitioner.
Altogether, three cases formed the basis for the passing of the impugned
order, and all the said cases are registered mainly alleging commission of
offences under the KPRB & RRS Act. The case registered against the
petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.1692/2024 of Thirur Police Station, alleging commission of offences
punishable under Section 303(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS and Sections 20, 23 of
Kerala Protection of River Banks and RRS Act. The last prejudicial activity
was committed on 05.11.2024, and in the said case, the petitioner who
was arrayed as the 1st accused was arrested on the same day, and he
was subsequently released on bail on 08.11.2024. Thereafter it was on
10.02.2025, the District Police Chief, Malappuram, forwarded the
proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P)Act against the
petitioner. Subsequently, the jurisdictional authority passed the order of
externment on 03.03.2025, whereby the petitioner was restrained from
entering the limits of Malappuram Revenue District for a period of six
months from the date of receipt of the order.
8. The sequence of events narrated above reveals that there is
WP(Crl) No. 431/2025 :7:
2025:KER:40455
no inordinate delay in passing the impugned order. Moreover, an
externment order under the KAA(P) Act is having a significant bearing on
the personal as well as fundamental rights of an individual. Therefore,
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 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 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 KAA(P) Act, the latter visits a person with
WP(Crl) No. 431/2025 :8:
2025:KER:40455
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 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
externment in this case
9. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that, the externee will not fall under the definition of
a depredator of the environment, and consequently, he neither falls
under the definition of "goonda" nor under the definition of "known
goonda" provided under the KAA(P) Act and therefore, an order of
externment could not be passed against him. While considering the said
contention, it is to be noted that the allegation in the last case registered
against the petitioner is that on 05.11.2024, the petitioner committed
theft of river sand as well as transported the said river sand in a tipper
lorry bearing registration No.KL-07-AU-2871 in violation of the provisions
WP(Crl) No. 431/2025 :9:
2025:KER:40455
of the KPRB & RRS Act.
11. Keeping in mind the above allegation, while coming to the
definition of the term "goonda" as defined under Section 2(j), "goonda"
means "a person who indulges in any anti-social activities or promotes or
abets any illegal activity which are harmful for the for the maintenance of
the public order difrectly or indirectly and includes bootlegger, a
counterfeiter, a depredator of environment, a digital data and copy right
pirate, a drug offender, an hawala racketeer, hired ruffian, rowdy, an
immoral traffic offender, a loan shark, a money chain offender or a
property grabber". Now, the remaining question to be considered is
whether the petitioner can be treated as a depredator of the
environment. As defined under Section 2(g), a depredator of
environment means "a person who by any direct act by which he derives
pecuniary or commercial benefits, commits an offence under any law
relating to protection of environment or rivers or under any law relating
to sand mining from any place or under any law relating to quarrying or
mining, or who commits or abets the commission of offence punishable
under any law relating to conservation of forests or wildlife". Keeping in
mind the above definition, while reverting to the case at hand, it can be
WP(Crl) No. 431/2025 :10:
2025:KER:40455
seen that there is a specific allegation that the accused committed theft
of river sand and transported it in a lorry. Therefore, the act of the
accused prima facie attracts offence under Section 303(2) of BNS as well
as under Sections 20 & 23 of the KPRB & RRS Act. The said act of the
petitioner will certainly amount to an offence under the law relating to
the protection of the environment, rivers, and sand mining. Therefore,
the petitioner will squarely fall under the definition of depredator of
environment. Consequently, the petitioner can be classified as a
"goonda". Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the contention of
the petitioner that the offence alleged against him are not enough to
initiate proceedings under KAA(P) Act will not be sustained.
12. From a perusal of the records, we are satisfied that all the
necessary requirements before passing an order under Section 15(1) of
the KAA(P) Act have been scrupulously complied with in this case. We
are further satisfied that the competent authority passed the externment
order after thoroughly verifying all the materials placed by the sponsoring
authority and after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed under
Section 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act is vitiated in any manner.
WP(Crl) No. 431/2025 :11:
2025:KER:40455
13. In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner
has not made out any case for interference.
Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl) No. 431/2025 :12:
2025:KER:40455
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 431/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.2.2025 NO.
B3-3204/2025/TSR
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-3204/2025/TSR
DATED 3.3.2025 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO. 1692/2024 OF TIRUR POLICE
STATION
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.4.2025 IN
OP.NO.63 OF 2025 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH
RESPONDENT
