JAYAPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P1 order dtd. 22/4/2024, issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam Range invoking Sec. 15 (1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short 'KAAP Act'). As per the said order, the petitioner has been interdicted from entering into the jurisdictional limits of the District Police Chief, Kottayam for a period of nine months. The Advisory Board, before which the petitioner mounted a challenge against Ext.P1 order, proceeded to reduce the period of externment to seven months by Ext.P2 order. The said order is also under challenge in this petition.

(2.) On account of the involvement of the petitioner in four crimes registered within the limits of various Police Stations of Kottayam District, the respondents arrived at the objective satisfaction that the petitioner satisfied the parameters of being classified as a 'known rowdy' as defined under Sec. 2(p)(iii) of the KAAP Act. The last prejudicial activity committed by the petitioner was Crime No.1530 of 2023, registered at the Mundakayam Police Station on 20/11/2023 for offences inter alia under Ss. 294(b), 341, 308 r/w. Sec. 34 of the IPC. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said crime on 21/11/2023, and he was released on bail on 6/1/2024. After his release, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief on 14/3/2024 seeking initiation of proceedings under Sec. 15(1) of the KAAP Act. On receipt of the proposal, the authority concerned issued notice on 21/3/2024 in terms of Sec. 15(1) of the Act, calling upon the proposed externee to show cause why proceedings shall not be initiated against him. On receipt of the reply dtd. 8/4/2024 submitted by the petitioner, he was granted an opportunity to raise his objections for which he was directed to appear before the authority concerned on 18/4/2024. The explanation offered by him was rejected and the impugned order was passed restricting his entry into Kottayam District. Challenging the said order, the externee submitted a representation before the Advisory Board. The Board, after evaluating the contentions, came to the conclusion that the order passed is in strict conformity with the relevant provisions of the Act. However, considering the family background of the externee, the period of the externment was reduced to seven months.

(3.) Ms. Anakha Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that undue delay in passing the externment order would undermine its validity, particularly when no convincing or plausible explanation is offered for the delay. She urged that if the delay is inordinate, it would cast serious doubt on the subjective satisfaction of the authority in issuing the order. Referring to the chronology of events in this case, the learned counsel pointed out that the last prejudicial act was committed on 20/11/2023, the proposal for externment was only submitted on 14/3/2024-nearly three months and twenty days later-and the order itself was passed even later, on 22/4/2024, approximately five months after the prejudicial act. According to the learned counsel, prompt action is insisted to maintain the live connection between the last prejudicial act and the order of externment as otherwise, the individual concerned shall continue to perpetrate his anti-social activities and pose a threat to public safety. To support her contentions, profuse reliance was placed on the observations and the law laid down in Aji V. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors.,[2023: KER: 36761].