AJI V. NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P1 externment order issued under Sec. 15(1) (a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) and Ext. P5, the modified externment order are under challenge in the present writ petition. By way of Ext.P1 externment order issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has been restrained from entering the territorial limits of Ernakulam City Police for a period of one year. Ext.P2 order has been modified as per Ext.P5 order of the fifth respondent, the Advisory Board, under Sec. 15(2) of the KAAPA, by which the period of externment has been reduced from one year to nine months.

(2.) The main challenge raised against Ext.P1 is that there is an unexplained delay in passing Ext.P1 externment order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is an inordinate, unjustifiable, and unexplained delay between the last prejudicial activity and externment order. While the last prejudicial activity took place on 29/9/2022, the proposal for externment was made by the third respondent only on 19/12/2022. There is an unexplained delay of 2 months and 20 days. The externment order was passed on 27/1/2023, which is again after more than one month of the proposal. There is a delay of 3 months and 28 days in total between the last prejudicial activity and the passing of the externment order. Referring to the dictum in Jasid A.S v. State of Kerala, 2022 (7) KHC 599, it was submitted that due to the inordinate delay or gap between prejudicial activity and Ext. P1 order, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment had snapped, on which ground alone Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Heard Sri. Ajeesh M Ummer, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.