JUDGMENT : K.T. Sankaran, J. The Inspector General of Police, Kochi Range issued Ext.P3 order No.02(K)/Camp/14 K.O.R dated 20.12.2014 under Section 15(1) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities Prevention Act (hereinafter referred to as 'KAAPA'), restraining the petitioner from entering into the jurisdictional limits of the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, for a period of six months. Ext.P3 order shows that the petitioner was involved in five criminal cases and that the definition of "known rowdy" under Section 2(p)(iii) of KAAPA was attracted in the case. 2. The petitioner submitted a representation under Section 15 (2) of KAAPA before the Advisory Board. At the time of hearing before the Advisory Board, it was submitted that two cases in which the petitioner was the accused ended in acquittal before passing Ext.P3 order and two other cases ended in the acquittal after the passing of Ext.P3 order. It was therefore submitted that the minimum required number of cases were not available to term the petitioner as a "known rowdy". This contention was rejected by the Advisory Board on the ground that it is settled law that acquittal subsequent to the passing of the orders under KAAPA cannot affect the objective satisfaction that the person is a "known rowdy". 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the representation submitted by the petitioner before the Advisory Board it was stated that he is an autorickshaw driver and that he was involved in the activities objecting to the opening of bar hotels on holidays and at odd hours contrary to the Rules. The petitioner was in the forefront of such agitations. It is also stated in the representation that the parents of the petitioner are aged and that his father had undergone a surgery. The family members are depending on the income of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage of the petitioner is to be held on 16.3.2015 and a representation was submitted to the Inspector General of Police to release him for a period of two weeks. The learned Government Pleader submitted that an order dated 25.2.2015 was passed by the Inspector General of Police permitting the petitioner to enter into the limits of Ernakulam Rural Police District for a period of seven days from 15.3.2015. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that an order dated 25.2.2015 was passed by the Inspector General of Police permitting the petitioner to enter into the limits of Ernakulam Rural Police District for a period of seven days from 15.3.2015. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in four out of the five cases, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the period of externment can be modified. Power is conferred on the Advisory Board to annul, amend or confirm the order. In a writ petition, the Court is also empowered to annul, amend or confirm the order. 6. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the period of externment can be limited up to 10.3.2015. We also think it expedient to impose certain conditions for limiting the period of externment, by directing the petitioner to report before the Station House Officer, Piravom Police Station on all Wednesdays between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. till the period of externment under Ext.P3 is over. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order is modified by reducing the period of externment up to 10.3.2015 on condition that the petitioner shall report before the Station House Officer, Piravom Police Station on all Wednesdays between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. till the period of externment under Ext.P3 is over. The Writ Petition (Civil) is allowed to the above extent.