The Kerala High Court in the case Mathews A v State of Kerala observed and has held that an externment order passed with much delay, after the period of four months in this case for instance, affects the proprietary of such order.
The Division bench comprising of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen in the case observed and has confined the operation of externment order.
The court in the case obserevd and has adverted to the factual situation as above, as the said court find that there is much delay affecting the proprietary of the impugned order, no interference is called for to set aside the order.
However, the court also took note of the fact that the order is already in operation for more than three months and this court confine the operation of the externment order till November 10, 2023. Therefore, the order was passed of externment against the petitioner invoking section 15 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007 (hereafter, KAA(P)A Act) for a period of six months.
Therefore, the externment order was being challenged by the petitioner before the High Court on the ground of delay.
The petitioner in the plea challenged that the last crime which is being registered against him was on April 17, 2023 and the show cause notice was issued only on August 2, 2023 which was after much delay of more than four months. Thus, the order was passed of externment on 21.08.2023. It has also been argued by the petitioner in the plea that there should be a live or proximate link between the last prejudicial activity and the order of externment. The court also relied upon the case Deepak S/O Laxman Dongre v State of Maharashtra (2022), Ashraf Ali v State of Kerala (2023) and Shamnad Amiyan v State of Kerala (2023), it was being argued that the delay in initiation of proceedings would vitiate the purpose of issuance of externment order.
It ahs also been noted by the court that the delay may not be decisive in every case as the authorities will have to consider various factors while issuing such an order.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that it was not a case where a detention order but an order of externment was passed after much delay.
Accordingly, the court disposed of the writ plea.
The counsel, Advocates S.K.Adhithyan and Althaf Nabeel appeared for the petitioner.