Kerala High Court
Athul Raj vs State Of Kerala on 25 June, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:45647
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 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 447 OF 2025
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
ATHUL RAJ
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O RAJAN, PEEDIKAYILAYYATHU VEEDU,
PALLISSERICKAL P.O, SASTHAMKOTTA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690521
BY ADVS.
SHRI.AJITH MURALI
SHRI.MOHANAN M.K.
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
2 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
KOLLAM RANGE OFFICE, KOLLAM - 691001
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KOLLAM - 691013
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM - 690521
5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SOORANADU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM - 690522
WP(Crl)No. 447 OF 2025 :2:
2025:KER:45647
BY ADV.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 24.06.2025, THE COURT ON 25.06.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl)No. 447 OF 2025 :3:
2025:KER:45647
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 25.02.2025 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 Kollam 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, Kollam Rural 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, Thiruvananthapuram 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 four cases in which the petitioner
got himself involved for passing the order of externment. The case
2025:KER:45647
registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is crime No.1230/2024 of Sasthamkotta Police Station, alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2),
118(1), 117(2) r/w. 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS")
and the petitioner is arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said case.
4. Heard Sri. Ajith Murali, 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
2025:KER:45647
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 four cases registered
against him, the proceedings under KAA(P) Act were initiated against
him. Out of the four cases considered by the jurisdictional authority,
the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.1230/2024 of Sasthamkotta Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2) r/w.
3(5) of BNS. The date of occurrence of the said case was on
15.09.2024. In the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 17.12.2024
and was released on bail on the same day. It was on 16.01.2025, the
District Police Chief, Kollam Rural, mooted the proposal for initiation of
proceedings under KAA(P) Act. Thereafter, on 14.02.2025, 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 response to the said notice, the petitioner appeared
before the jurisdictional authority on 20.02.2025, and submitted a
written representation. It was after considering his written
2025:KER:45647
representation and 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
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
2025:KER:45647
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 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
2025:KER:45647
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 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.
2025:KER:45647
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 Kollam 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:45647
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 447/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.SIT-2327/2025/TR ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 25.02.2025.
Exhibit-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.P
NO.56/2025 OF THE HONORABLE ADVISORY BOARD
DATED 25.03.2025.
