JUDGMENT :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent of parties. 4. Both the writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment as the impugned orders passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate against the petitioners are more or less similar. Both the petitioners are brothers. About 6 to 7 criminal cases are pending against both of them. Last case reported against the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.123 of 2013 is of the year 2010. Similarly, last case reported against petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.124 of 2013 is also of the year 2010. Both of them are involved in Crime No.112 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. There are no adverse report after 2010 against either of the petitioner. The orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate are based on the reports submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. It appears from the orders that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had agreed with the findings given by the Sub Divisional Police Officer in his report. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in his order, has stated that the petitioners could not adduce any evidence or could not convince the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the inquiry reports submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer were baseless. 6. In my considered view this cannot be a ground for acceptance of report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. The externment order can be passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate only after he himself is satisfied that the externment order was necessary to be passed. There may be proposal from the police officer and there may be adverse inquiry report from the Enquiry Officer but when the matter comes for final order it is the duty of the competent authority to satisfy himself that it is necessary for one or other reason mentioned in Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act to pass externment order against the proposed externee. This is missing from both the orders. 'Subjective satisfaction' of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not reflected in either of the orders. Therefore, both the orders suffer from infirmity and need to be set aside. Hence, I pass the following order. (i) Both the writ petitions are allowed. (ii) The orders passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Buldana in Criminal Proceedings No.14 of 2012 and 8 of 2011 are set aside. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Therefore, both the orders suffer from infirmity and need to be set aside. Hence, I pass the following order. (i) Both the writ petitions are allowed. (ii) The orders passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Buldana in Criminal Proceedings No.14 of 2012 and 8 of 2011 are set aside. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Petitions allowed.