High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2024-08-01Writ petition allowed; externment order quashed.

Muhammed Althaf v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(Crl.) No. 729 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: G. Girish
Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2024-08-01
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P1 externment order under Section 15(1)(a) KAA(P)A was set aside; the writ petition is allowed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; externment order quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammed Althaf

Respondents

State of Kerala rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala (Home Department), Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range (Authorised Officer)
Commissioner of Police, Thrissur City
Inspector of Police, Town East Police Station, Thrissur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Jerry Mathew
• Vijayan V.

Counsels for Respondents

• Advocate General Office Kerala (AG Office Kerala)
• Addl. Director General of Prosecution (AG-11)
• Addl. State Public Prosecutor (AG-28)
• Sri KA Anaz, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court heard a criminal writ petition challenging an externment order issued under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAA(P)A) against Muhammed Althaf. The Authorized Officer externed him from Thrissur Revenue District for one year based on a Sponsoring Authority report stating that the petitioner engaged in anti-social activities and was a "known rowdy." The Sponsoring Authority relied on three prior cases, including a murder charge in the third incident, with the petitioner currently on bail. The last prejudicial act is dated 06.11.2023; the petitioner was arrested on 07.11.2023 and released on bail on 20.02.2024 with strict conditions. Despite these events, externment proceedings were initiated only on 04.05.2024, show cause issued on 18.05.2024, and the externment order dated 29.05.2024, served 15.06.2024 and executed 30.06.2024. The petitioner contends the order violates legal mandates and contains fatal procedural defects. The court notes an inordinate delay of six months and 21 days from the last prejudicial activity to the externment, plus a delay of 74 days from the SHO’s Ext.P4 recommendation to the externment order, with unexplained gaps in the sequence of actions. Relying on Shamnad Amiyan v. State of Kerala (2023 KHC 271), the court holds that the live-link between last activity and externment has been snapped, rendering Ext.P1 void. Consequently, the petition is allowed and Ext.P1 is set aside.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAA(P)A)Section 107 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureIndian Penal Code: 294(b), 323, 341, 506, 34Indian Penal Code: 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 302, 120(B) r/w 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Live-link doctrine in externment cases: delay without explanation breaks the link between last prejudicial activity and externment
Prompt action / timely initiation of externment
Shamnad Amiyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 KHC 271: delay in initiating externment without explanation vitiates legality and weakens the order (live-link snapped)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner challenges the externment order under Section 15(1)(a) KAA(P)A on grounds of non-compliance with statutory requirements and procedural irregularities, including prolonged and unexplained delay between the last prejudicial activity and the externment order, which breaks the live-link between the relevant acts and the order. The Sponsoring Authority’s and Authorized Officer’s actions are urged to be void for lack of timely and substantiated justification. The petitioner points to the sequence of communications—Exts. P4, P5, and P6—and contends that the delay undermines the legal sanctity of Externment. The murder allegation among the incidents and the bail status are cited to emphasize risk yet argue that due process was not observed.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that externment was issued under the statutory framework of KAA(P)A after due consideration of the Sponsoring Authority’s report and the alleged risk to public order. They contend that the order is grounded in the petitioner’s history of anti-social activities and the last prejudicial act, including the serious murder charge, and that the authorities followed the requisite procedures. They assert that any delay does not nullify the legal mechanism given the continuing risk and that the order was issued in compliance with statutory safeguards.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shamnad Amiyan v. State of Kerala	2023 KHC 271	Positive	The Division Bench held that when delay between last prejudicial activity and externment is inordinate and unexplained, the live-link is snapped, rendering the externment order void; the present case follows this rationale.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Muhammed Althaf v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V`** ``` & THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEG.GIRISH ``` ``` THURSDAY,THE1[ST]DAYOFAUGUST2024/10THSRAVANA,1946 WP(CRL.)NO.729OF2024 ``` ``` CRIMENO.1302/2023OFTOWNWESTPOLICESTATION,THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` MUHAMMEDALTHAF,AGED23YEARS S/OABDULMANAF,KALIYATTUPARAMBILHOUSE,DIVANJIMOOLA DESAM,VELIYANNOORVILLAGE,THRISSURDISTRICT,PIN-680021 ``` ``` BYADVS. JERRYMATHEW;VIJAYAN.V. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & ORS.:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA(HOME DEPARTMENT),SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`2 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR CHEMBOOKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680020`** - **`3 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRISSUR CITY, RAMAVARMAPURAM THRISSUR, PIN - 680631`** - **`4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TOWN EAST POLICE STATION THRISSUR, VELIYANOOR, PIN - 680001`** ``` BYADVS. ``` ``` ADVOCATEGENERALOFFICEKERALA ADDL.DIRECTORGENERALOFPROSECUTION(AG-11) ADDL.STATEPUBLICPROSECUTOR(AG-28) ``` ## **`SRI KA ANAZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR`** ``` THISWRITPETITION(CRIMINAL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR ADMISSIONON01.08.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: ``` 2 W.P.(Crl) No.729/2024 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **G.Girish, J.** The order dated 29.05.2024 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range (Authorised Officer) directing the externment of the petitioner from Thrissur Revenue District for a period of one year under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act [for short ‘KAA(P)A’], is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The District Police Chief, Thrissur City (Sponsoring Authority) by his report dated 04.05.2024 (Ext.P6) recommended the externment of the petitioner for maximum period from Thrissur Revenue District stating the reason that the petitioner has been indulging in anti-social activities causing disruption to public order. The three cases shown in the following table were mentioned in Ext.P6 report for considering the petitioner as a ‘known rowdy’: |rowdy’:|||| |---|---|---|---| |**Sl.No.**|**Crime No.**|**Offences**|**Present Status**| |1|1375/2019 of Thrissur Town East Police Station|u/s 294(b), 323, 341 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC|Case is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur for trial as C.C.No.333/2020| |2|993/2023 of Thrissur Town East Police Station|u/s 294(b), 323 and 341 IPC|Case is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur for trial as C.C.No.510/2023| |3|1302/2023 of Thrissur Town West Police Station|u/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 302, 120(B) r/w Section 149 IPC|Case is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur as C.P.No.09/2024 for committal proceedings.| 3 W.P.(Crl) No.729/2024 3. In addition to the above information, the Sponsoring Authority reported to the Authorised Officer that proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are pending against the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur as M.C.No.819/2023. In all the aforesaid cases, the petitioner was reported to be on bail. 4. The Authorised Officer issued Ext.P2 show cause notice dated 18.05.2024 to the petitioner calling for his explanation why an order of externment restricting his entry into the Thrissur Revenue District shall not be passed against him. The petitioner appeared in person before the Authorised Officer on 23.05.2024 and stated that he was totally innocent in all the aforesaid cases and requested to close the proceedings against him. Finding that the explanation offered orally by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the Authorised Officer passed Ext.P1 externment order, which was served on the petitioner on 15.06.2024 and executed on 30.06.2024. 5. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the Authorised Officer passed the impugned order flouting the mandate of law, and that the said order is vitiated by various fatal procedural violations. 6. The Authorised Officer who has been arraigned as the 2[nd] respondent in this petition, filed counter affidavit through the learned Public Prosecutor affirming her observations in Ext.P1 order for restricting the entry of the petitioner to Thrissur Revenue District for a period of one year. 4 W.P.(Crl) No.729/2024 7. Heard Adv.Mr.Jerry Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.A.Anaz, the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents. 8. In all the three crimes relied on by the Authorised Officer for classifying the petitioner as a ‘known rowdy’, the petitioner is on bail. As shown in the table above, the offences alleged against the petitioner in the first two cases are of trivial nature. However, the third crime which is considered as the last prejudicial activity of the petitioner, is in respect of the offence of murder, in which he is arraigned as the 1[st] accused. 9. The date of commission of the last crime alleged against the petitioner is 06.11.2023, and he is said to have been arrested on 07.11.2023. The petitioner remained in judicial custody in connection with the aforesaid case till 20.02.2024. On 20.02.2024, the petitioner was released on bail subject to strict conditions vide Ext.P7 order of the learned Sessions Judge, Thrissur. Thereafter on 15.03.2024, the Inspector of Police, Thrissur Town East Police Station submitted Ext.P4 letter to the District Police Chief, Thrissur City through Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrissur, requesting to initiate the proceedings for externment of the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrissur forwarded the above request to the District Police Chief, Thrissur City vide Ext.P5 letter on 16.03.2024. Thereafter, the District Police Chief, Thrissur City is seen to have made Ext.P6 request to the 5 W.P.(Crl) No.729/2024 Authorised Officer only on 04.05.2024 for proceeding against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) of KAA(P)A. Acting upon Ext.P6 request, the Authorised Officer issued Ext.P2 show cause notice on 18.05.2024, and Ext.P1 externment order on 29.05.2024. 10. It is apparent from the chronological events mentioned in the aforesaid paragraph that there occurred a delay of six months and 21 days from the date of last prejudicial activity attributed to the petitioner, for initiating the proceedings under Section 15(1)(a) of KAA(P)A by the Authorised Officer. So also, there is a delay of 74 days from the date of Ext.P4 recommendation of the Station House Officer concerned, in passing Ext.P1 order of externment. Ext.P6 report of the Sponsoring Authority is seen made after about 50 days from Ext.P4 recommendation of the Station House Officer, Thrissur Town East Police Station for initiating proceedings of externment against the petitioner. There is absolutely no plausible explanation offered by the authorities concerned for the delay in taking appropriate steps in the above regard in connection with the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 11. In view of the above inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 6 months and 21 days from the last prejudicial activity attributed to the petitioner, for initiating the proceedings under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P)A, it has to be taken that the live-link between the last prejudicial 6 W.P.(Crl) No.729/2024 activity reckoned for classification of the petitioner as ‘known rowdy’, and the order of externment has been snapped. In **Shamnad Amiyan v. State of Kerala [2023 KHC 271]** , a Division Bench of this Court has held that when the delay from the last prejudicial activity and the issuance of externment order has not been explained, and it is inordinate, the live-link and proximate link has been snapped which invites the interdiction of High Court in judicial review. That was a case where the Station House Officer concerned gave the report dated 01.07.2022 to the District Police Chief, who in turn, had approached the Deputy Inspector General of Police, only on 21.07.2022 with the recommendation to initiate proceedings under Section 15(1)(a) of KAA(P)A against the offender. As far as the present case is concerned, as already stated above, the District Police Chief, Thrissur City is seen to have sat over Ext.P4 report dated 15.03.2024 of the Station House Officer, Thrissur East Police Station till 04.05.2024, without approaching the Authorized Officer. So also, it could be seen that the long delay of more than 6½ months from the last prejudicial activity of the petitioner, to the impugned order, could not be explained satisfactorily by the authorities concerned. 12. Thus, the impugned order of externment passed by the Authorized Officer is liable to be interfered with upon the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in taking prompt steps. 7 W.P.(Crl) No.729/2024 For the aforesaid reasons, we find that Ext.P1 order passed by the Authorized Officer sans legal sanctity, and it is accordingly set aside. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** Sd/- **G.GIRISH, JUDGE** jsr/vgd 8 W.P.(Crl) No.729/2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO.729/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS`** ``` ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHEORDEROFEXTERNMENTNO. B3-8870/2024/TSRDATED29.05.2024ISSUEDBYTHE 2NDRESPONDENTUNDERSECTION15(1)(A)OFKERALA ANTISOCIALACTIVITIES(PREVENTION)ACT2007 ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHESHOWCAUSENOTICENO. B3-8870/2024/TSRDATED18.05.2024ISSUEDBY RESPONDENTNO.2 ExhibitP3THETRUECOPYOFTHECOMMUNICATIONINTHIS REGARD ExhibitP4ATRUECOPYOFTHELETTERDATED15.03.2024 203/TDR/ITE/2024ISSUEDBY4THRESPONDENT ExhibitP5ATRUECOPYOFTHELETTERDATED16.03.2023 BEARINGNO.06/KAAPA/TSD/24 ExhibitP6ATRUECOPYOFTHELETTERDATED04.05.2024NO. 77/KAAPA/SB/RC/2024 ExhibitP7TRUECOPYOFTHEBAILORDEROFHON'BLESESSIONS COURT,THRISSURINCRL.M.C.NO.214/2024DATED 20.02.2024 ```