Jobin Sebastian, J.

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order passed under Section 15(1)(b) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. By the said order, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Ponnani Police Station, on every Wednesday between 9.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m for one year from the date of receipt of the order.

2. The records available before us reveal that, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities, that the District Police Chief, Malappuram, on 15.12.2025, submitted a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the authorised officer, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range. For initiation of the said proceedings, the petitioner was classified as a “known goonda” as defined under Section 2(o)(ii) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.

3. The authority considered four cases in which the petitioner got involved in passing the restriction order. Out of the said cases, the case  registered  against  the  petitioner  with  respect  to  the  last prejudicial activity is crime No.997/2025 of Kuttipuram Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 305(e) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”) and 20 and 23 of The Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001.

4. Heard Smt. Hasna Jabil, 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, Ext.P1 order was passed in a casual manner, and it was without assigning any reason that the jurisdictional authority passed a restriction order for a maximum period of one year. The learned counsel further urged that when the maximum period of restriction was ordered, it was incumbent upon the authority to show the reasons for the same. Nevertheless, no convincing reason whatsoever has been assigned by the authority for passing the maximum period of restriction. Moreover, the learned counsel further submitted that the direction requiring the petitioner to appear before the SHO on every Wednesday for a period of one year has caused significant inconvenience and hardship. It was contended that  such  a  condition  adversely  affects  the  petitioner’s  means  of livelihood and materially impacts the subsistence of his dependent family members. On these grounds, it was urged that the impugned order be set aside in the interest of justice.

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, there is nothing wrong in passing a restriction order for a period of one year if the circumstances warrant it, and therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order.

7. A perusal of the records reveals that it was after considering the involvement of the petitioner in four cases registered against him that the proceedings under the KAA(P) Act were initiated against him. Notably, all the cases registered against the petitioner are alleging commission of offfences mainly under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Likewise, the petitioner was classified as a known goonda mainly for the reason that he would fall under the definition of depredator of environment.

8. Out of the four cases considered by the jurisdictional authority, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.997/2025 of Kuttipuram Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 305(e) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”) The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 10.10.2025. It was on 15.12.2025, the District Police Chief, Malappuram, mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 14.01.2026, the jurisdictional authority issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why an order under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act and in order to afford him an opportunity of being heard, he was further directed to appear before the jurisdictional authority on 20.01.2026. In response to the notice, the petitioner appeared and filed a written submission before the jurisdictional authority. After considering his submission and hearing him personally, the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order on 22.01.2026. The sequence of events narrated above clearly reveals that there is no unreasonable 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 the procedural safeguards provided under the KAA(P) Act.

9. The main dispute that revolves around this writ petition is with respect to the period of restriction ordered by the jurisdictional authority. As already stated, the main grievance of the petitioner is that it was without assigning any reason that the maximum period of restriction was ordered. While considering the said contention, it is to be noted that the scope of interference by a court of law in the subjective as well as objective satisfaction arrived at by the jurisdictional authority that passed an order of restriction is too limited. Moreover, unlike an externment order or a detention order, a restriction order passed under Section 15(1)(b) of the KAA(P) Act has only a limited and comparatively minimal impact on the personal and fundamental rights of an individual. Therefore, ordinarily, it is not desirable to interfere with the period of restriction imposed by the jurisdictional authority. However, where it is demonstrated that the duration of such restriction has occasioned grave prejudice or undue hardship, the Court may justifiably interfere and reduce the period.

10. While adverting to the case at hand, it is evident that four cases have been registered against the petitioner for violation of the provisions contained under Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 an Prima facie, the petitioner would fall within the definition of a “depredator of the environment” as provided under the KAA(P) Act. The antecedents of the petitioner indicate that further anti-social activities on his part can be effectively prevented only if he is subjected to monitoring for a period of one year. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the restriction order passed for a period of one year does not warrant interference.

11. However, the direction in the impugned order requiring the petitioner to appear before the SHO on every Wednesday appears to be unduly harsh. Considering the hardship and inconvenience that would be caused to the petitioner in complying with such a direction, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to modify the same by directing the petitioner to appear before the SHO concerned on the first Wednesday of every month.

                  Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, the writ petition is allowed in part, and Ext.P1 order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Ponnani Police Station, on the first Wednesday of every month between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., for a period of one year.