B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

In all these matters, the orders of externment passed by the respective Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati and Nagpur, under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, are in question.

2] In Writ Petition No.693 of 2015, the impugned order is dated 13022014 and it is passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Amravati city. The petitioner has been externed for a period of two years out of Amravati city and Amravati rural limits. The appeal against this order preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati on 07-07-2015.

3] In Writ Petition No.642 of 2015, the order of externment is dated 02-04-2014 and it is issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati city, externing the petitioner therein from very same limits for two years.

4] In Writ Petition No.604 of 2015, the order of externment dated 22.01.2015 is issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Nagpur City, thereby externing the petitioner for a period of one year from the limits of Nagpur city and Nagpur district rural areas. The appeal preferred by him is dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur on 03-07-2015.

5] We have heard learned Advocate Shri Navlani, learned Advocate Shri Shinde and learned Advocate Shri Chitaley respectively for these petitioners. Shri Ukey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri Nayak, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Shri Thakare, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, have represented the State in all these matters.

6] During hearing, as the issue about non application of mind and therefore the absence of subjective satisfaction was raised almost on the same facts in all these three matters. We find it proper to decide the same by the common judgment.

7] In Writ Petition No.642 of 2015 the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the petitioner in this petition has not availed of the statutory remedy of appeal and has not filed appeal. The order of externment dated 02.04.2014 has been challenged directly before this Court almost after 16 months. Learned Advocate Shri Shinde has submitted that as the order of externment is bad, the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is violated and as the order is to remain in force up to April 2016, therefore, the violation still continues. In this situation, we are not inclined to hold that the non availing of statutory remedy should be used to deny the consideration of grievance as made by the petitioner. As the order of externment continues, we cannot say that the challenge is belated.

8] In Writ Petition No.693 of 2015, the externment order mentions the offences dated 15.01.2010 and 17.11.2013. The trial, in relation to both these offences, is still pending. The other offence mentioned is Crime No.3056 of 2011 and it is under Sections 20 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [‘N.D.P.S. Act’]. The date of offence is disclosed to be 07.01.2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been acquitted on 23.12.2013 from this matter. The preventive action taken against the petitioner on four occasions i.e. on 21.09.2007, 22.12.2007, 19.01.2012 and 12.02.2012, also finds mention thereafter in a separate chart. The impugned order is passed on 13.02.2014 i.e. more than two months after the acquittal of the petitioner in N.D.P.S. matter and the fact of acquittal does not find any consideration therein.

9] In Writ Petition No.642 of 2015, the offences registered vide Crime Nos.262 of 2012 and 2118 of 2013 are stated to be pending. The impugned order therein is dated 02.04.2014 and the preventive action taken on 11.08.2013 and 13.09.2013 finds mention in second chart. In Writ Petition No. 604 of 2015, the offences registered vide Crime Nos.111 of 2013, 3213 of 2013 and 3536 of 2014 find mention in first chart. The trial in all those matters is stated to be pending on 22.01.2015 that is the