Kerala High Court
Sajan vs State Of Kerala on 8 September, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:66587
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32166 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SAJAN
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O SHAJI, MOOKKANVILA VEEDU,
NOW RESIDING AT CHAMUNDY THEKKETHIL HOUSE,
SIVAN VILA, MANGADU, KOLLAM, PIN - 691015
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SHRI.ANANDHU P.C.
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPUAM,
PIN - 695010
3 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS,
PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN - 682026
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.32166 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:66587
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
11.07.2025 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 six months from the date of the receipt of the order.
However, the KAA(P)A Advisory Board vide order dated 19.08.2025
modified the said order by reducing the period of externment to
three months from six months and after the expiry of the period of
externment, as directed above, the petitioner was directed to
report before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kollam, and
sign before him on every Monday between 10 a.m. and 11.00 a.m.,
for a period of two months.
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 City on 22.05.2025
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 General of Police,
Thiruvananthapuram Range. For initiation of the said proceedings,
WP(C) No.32166 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:66587
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 three cases in which the
petitioner was involved for passing the order of externment. Out of
the said cases, the case registered against the petitioner with
respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.531/2025 of
Kilikollur Police Station, alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 194(2), 132,
12(2), 109 and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
4. Heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, 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,
the jurisdictional authority failed to take note of the fact that there
was a time gap of more than three years between the last
prejudicial activity and the last but one, and that itself reveals that
the petitioner is not a person having a propensity to be involved in
criminal activity repeatedly. The learned counsel further submitted
that the impugned order was passed by the authority without
WP(C) No.32166 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:66587
arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction.
On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order is liable
to be set aside.
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, the time gap between the last case
and the last but one case registered against the petitioner is of
little significance, particularly when all the cases considered by the
jurisdictional authority while passing the impugned order are
qualified to be considered for classifying the petitioner as a known
rowdy, and therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned
order.
7. A perusal of the records reveals that it was after
considering the involvement of the petitioner in three cases, the
proceedings under the KAA(P) Act were initiated against him. Out
of the three cases considered by the jurisdictional authority, the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.531/2025 of Kilikollur Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 194(2),
132, 12(2), 109 and 190 of BNS. The incident that led to the
WP(C) No.32166 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:66587
registration of the said crime occurred on 10.03.2025. The
petitioner, who was arrayed as the 6th accused in the said case,
was arrested on 07.04.2024 and subsequently, he was released on
bail on 30.04.2025. Thereafter, it was on 22.05.2025, the District
Police Chief, Kollam City, mooted the proposal for initiation of
proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the petitioner.
Subsequently, on 25.06.2025, 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 the
said notice, to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard,
he was further directed to appear in person before the
jurisdictional authority on 03.07.2025. In response to the said
notice, the petitioner appeared before the jurisdictional authority
on 03.07.2025. It was after considering the written reply submitted
by the petitioner 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 all the procedural
safeguards envisaged under the KAA(P) Act.
8. While considering the contention taken by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the jurisdictional authority failed to
take note of the fact that there was a time gap of more than three
WP(C) No.32166 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:66587
years between the last prejudicial activity and the last but one case
registered against the petitioner, it is to be noted that the said time
gap alone is not a reason to enter into a conclusion that the
satisfaction arrived on by the authority to pass the impugned order
is vitiated. Evidently, the acts done by the petitioner within seven
years prior to the date of the order alone formed the basis for
passing the Ext.P1 order of externment. All the cases are qualified
to be considered for passing the said order and to classify the
petitioner as a 'known rowdy' under the KAA(P) Act. Therefore, the
gap of around three years between the last two cases registered
against the petitioner is of little consequence as far as the
subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authority concerned. In
this regard, we are fortified by the decision in Ammini v. State of
Kerala and others (2016(3) KHC 456), wherein it was held that
cumulative effect of the nature of crime in which the detenu is
involved during the previous seven years and the activities of the
detenu in recent time would give the necessary factual foundation
for detaining authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction. The fact
that no crimes were registered against the petitioner for a
considerable length of time is not a ground to hold that the
subjective satisfaction arrived at is vitiated. Therefore, we have no
hesitation in holding that the time gap between the two crimes
highlighted by the counsel for the petitioner has no significance.
WP(C) No.32166 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:66587
Anyhow, considering the family constraints projected by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that some
leniency can be shown with respect to the period of externment
order which the petitioner has to comply with. In the result, the
writ petition is allowed in part. The period of externment is
modified from three months to two months from the date of service
of the impugned order. For the remaining period of three months,
the petitioner shall appear before the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Kollam, and sign before him on every Monday between 10
a.m. and 11.00 a.m.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
WP(C) No.32166 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:66587
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32166/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SIT-
9830/2025/TR DATED 11.07.2025 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
19.08.2025 IN O.P.NO. 158/2025 OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT
