JUDGMENT : 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. 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 date on which the impugned order has been passed. In second chart, the preventive action taken in 2011 and 2013 finds mention. 10] All learned Counsel for the petitioners have argued that the offences allegedly registered against the petitioners are in respect of or in relation to area which falls in the jurisdiction of one Police Station. They also pointed out that the alleged preventive action should be restricted to the area of the said Police Station only. 10] All learned Counsel for the petitioners have argued that the offences allegedly registered against the petitioners are in respect of or in relation to area which falls in the jurisdiction of one Police Station. They also pointed out that the alleged preventive action should be restricted to the area of the said Police Station only. Their contention that the order of externment therefore is excessive, appears to be proper. If all the offences are committed in the jurisdiction of only one Police Station, why it has become necessary to extern the petitioner out of city limits or then out of district itself i.e. the limits of urban and rural areas, is not apparent from the orders of externment. 11] Insofar as the order dated 13.02.2014 in Writ Petition No.693 of 2015 is concerned, the preventive action taken in the year 2007 also has entered into the consideration of detaining authority. The N.D.P.S. offence was of year 2011 while the other offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is dated 15.01.2010. A show cause notice was issued on 28.01.2014 i.e. almost after four years or seven years of above referred offences. After these offences or actions, the other two preventive actions looked into are also more than two years old on the date of show cause notice. In Writ Petition No.604 of 2015, the show cause notice is dated 29.12.2014 and the preventive action taken in the year 2011 has been looked into to support the externment order. 12] Thus, in all these matters, the action is based upon the stale instances which does not have any live nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. the externment. This aspect does not find consideration in the impugned order. Even, on that count, the impugned orders are unsustainable. 13] In all the orders after mentioning the chart, in which the alleged offences are narrated in paragraph no.2, there is a sentence which mentions that the petitioner has indulged into several similar acts as are described in the charts mentioned in order. Thus, the effort is to point out that apart from the instances mentioned in the chart, there are several such deeds i.e. the offences in which the respective petitioner is involved. However, on what basis this conclusion is reached is not apparent. Thus, the effort is to point out that apart from the instances mentioned in the chart, there are several such deeds i.e. the offences in which the respective petitioner is involved. However, on what basis this conclusion is reached is not apparent. In last but one paragraph of the order, the authorities have mentioned that the concerned Police Officer has after great efforts succeeded in taking the witnesses into confidence and procured their incamera statements. The efforts made by the said Police Officer are also not on record. Thus, the alleged unwillingness of the witnesses to come forward to depose against the petitioner has not been properly brought on record by the respondents. The unreadiness or unwillingness can be brought on record by the Police Officer by pointing out the relevant information to the superiors. If there is no complaint in Police Station and no other record to show the involvement of any petitioner in several such matters, the finding that he is involved in several such acts cannot be sustained. If there is no such record, how the efforts were taken or made by the Police Officer to procure the statements of the so called witnesses, is also a doubtful question. The Police Officer may learn through informant or otherwise get information/intelligence about the commission of offence by the proposed externee. As there is no report or nobody comes forward, it may be possible to urge that in the opinion of the said officer, out of fear of the externee the witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose against him openly. We find that there is no such report of any of the Police Officer, in any of these matters, in this regard. 14] In two matters i.e. in Writ Petition Nos.693 and 642 of 2015, the two sealed envelopes containing incamera statements of the witnesses have been produced. In Writ Petition No.604 of 2015, the incamera statements are not sealed and are open on record for perusal of anybody who has access to that record. 15] In Writ Petition No.693 of 2015, after obtaining the signature of the person, who has given his incamera statement, the Assistant Commissioner of Police has verified it by putting a remark. The remark goes to establish the identity of said witness and also brings on record his unwillingness to depose openly. 15] In Writ Petition No.693 of 2015, after obtaining the signature of the person, who has given his incamera statement, the Assistant Commissioner of Police has verified it by putting a remark. The remark goes to establish the identity of said witness and also brings on record his unwillingness to depose openly. This material is then submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The Deputy Commissioner of Police has put a remark “seen” on both the statements with date 28.01.2014 on it. The incamera statements of both these witnesses are recorded on 22.11.2013 by the Assistant Inspector of Police and the verification is by the Assistant Commissioner of Police is dated 21.01.2014. These statements are seen by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 28.01.2014, who has passed the impugned order thereafter on 13.02.2014. 16] In Writ Petition No.642 of 2015, the incamera statements are similar and verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The statements are dated 03.03.2014 and they are recorded by the Police Sub-Inspector. The concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police has verified it on 25.03.2014 and 27.03.2014 basically. The Deputy Commissioner of Police has on 29.03.2014 put a remark “seen” on both these statements. 17] In Writ Petition No.604 of 2015, the only remark on both these statements is “seen” and it is by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. There is no verification by the Assistant Commissioner of Police at any point of time. We find that the incamera statements in this matter are dated 02.02.2014 and 06.02.2014 respectively. The Deputy Commissioner of Police has put a remark “seen” on 30th December upon these two incamera statements. The remarks put on these two incamera statements is a day after issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner. 18] The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has attempted to point out to us the procedure being followed. According to them, the recommendation along with the incamera statements is forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Police first who verifies the unreadiness or unwillingness of incamera witnesses. After he certifies/verifies the same, it is sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police for further processing. If this be the correct procedure, it has been followed in Writ Petition Nos.693 and 642 of 2015, it has not been so followed in Writ Petition No.604 of 2015. After he certifies/verifies the same, it is sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police for further processing. If this be the correct procedure, it has been followed in Writ Petition Nos.693 and 642 of 2015, it has not been so followed in Writ Petition No.604 of 2015. 19] Though, several judgments have been cited before us by the respective Counsel for the petitioners and also by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, we do not wish to refer to the same in present backdrop. The judgment of Gujarat High Court in case of Yakub Ismail Chhipa vs. The District Magistrate, reported at (1996) 1 GLR 4 , can be referred to here conveniently. The learned Single Judge of the said High Court has considered the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 only along with the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention Of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985. The discussion on subjective satisfaction appearing there is contained in paragraph no.5. The portion of paragraph no.5 of the said judgment relevant here is reproduced below as under :- “5. By virtue of Section 3(2) of the PASA, the Detaining Authority is invested with the conditional power to pass an order of detention and that the said condition precedent is his ‘subjective satisfaction’. Now what is this “subjective satisfaction”? What is the meaning of it? This expression “subjective satisfaction” is constituted of two words!! “Subjective” and “Satisfaction”. Accordingly, first of all let us see what is the meaning of the word “subjective”? As per the Concise Oxford Dictionary, it is 1. a persons’ views proceeding from personal idiosyncrasy or an individuality, not impartial. 2. Proceeding from or belonging to the individual consciousness or perception. Further, the word idiosyncrasy used above means: 1. a mental constitution, view or feeling or mode of behaviour peculiar to a person. 2. Anything highly individualized. 3. Mode of expression peculiar to any author etc. etc. As per ‘The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary’ the word ‘Subjective’ means: “1. Of pertaining to; 2. Of or pertaining to the real or inherent qualities of a thing or person; inherent; real, essential. 3. Of or pertaining to the thinking subject; proceeding from or taking place within the individual consciousness or perception, originating in the mind; belonging to the conscious life. 4. Of pertaining to; 2. Of or pertaining to the real or inherent qualities of a thing or person; inherent; real, essential. 3. Of or pertaining to the thinking subject; proceeding from or taking place within the individual consciousness or perception, originating in the mind; belonging to the conscious life. 4. Of, pertaining to, or proceeding from an individual’s thoughts, views etc., derived from or expressing a person’s individuality or idiosyncrasy; not impartial or literal; personal, individual. 5. Of, a person etc. tending to lay stress on one’s own feelings or opinions, etc. etc. Similarly the second word ‘satisfaction’ from the word satisfy means, ‘to adequately meet, fulfill or comply with (conditions, obligations, etc....) convince’ answer the requirement. Further, as observed by their Lordships of Gauhati High Court in case of Lalit Rajkhowa v. State of Assam and Ors., “the term “subjective” means pertaining or relating to the subject, namely, the detaining authority. The term satisfaction relates to the “thinking” of the detaining authority. The term has a reference to the mental element of the subject, i.e., the desires or feelings of the detaining authority. In a wider sense the term “satisfaction” may include “pleasure”. However, in the context in which the term “satisfaction” has been used indicates that there must be a state of mind which has satisfied or contented occasioned by some facts, events or state of things.” Bearing in mind the above dictionary meaning of “subjective satisfaction” it means that ‘satisfying oneself. Accordingly, the subjective satisfaction means in the first instance, the personal satisfaction of the concerned detaining authority himself only and none else and as a necessary corollary thereof, in the second instance, therefore, it cannot be tested or set aside on the objective test. This is the distinct and extraordinary characteristic of the detention power/order which once found to be validly exercised passed on the subjective satisfaction, then no Court, not even the High Court and for that purpose even the Apex Court can interfere with and unsettle the same exercising their powers as an appellate authority save and except where on some settled grounds judicial review is available!! In other words, this in substance simply means not to pass the order of detention mechanically on the basis of the grounds of detention prepared by the subordinate officers and placed before him for mere signature, as the Detaining Authority, without satisfying oneself regarding the need to detain a person immediately!! In order to bear the indisputable stamp of the subjective satisfaction, the grounds of detention may not be necessarily in handwriting of the Detaining Authority, but nonetheless it has got to be on the basis of the material produced before him and perused and thereafter on the basis of the same on being subjectively satisfied regarding the same, the grounds of detention dictated by him to his subordinate officer. In this view of the matter, detention law and jurisprudence warrants that before passing the order of detention, the detaining Authority has to himself subjectively get satisfied that there is material on the basis of which the detention order is required to be passed. In other words, the Detaining Authority is expected to pass an order of detention not on any rough and ready material furnished to him by his subordinate officer, including the grounds of detention and detention order by just signing the same without the real subjective satisfaction. If the office passes an order merely on the basis of material furnished before him and he has to merely sign the same, then it cannot be said that the order is passed on the basis of subjective satisfaction.” 20] Thus, in Writ Petition No.604 of 2015, the persons whose incamera statements have been recorded are not shown to have accepted or owned the same in presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Police. In other two matters these two in camera witnesses have owned their statements by remaining present before the Assistant Commissioner of Police. This material was then placed before the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police after due application of mind is supposed to pass the order of externment. The usual clauses which were used in the order in the process are also mentioned earlier by us. If any procedure in this respect is prescribed or is being followed consistently, the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police could not have acted upon the unverified incamera statements. The usual clauses which were used in the order in the process are also mentioned earlier by us. If any procedure in this respect is prescribed or is being followed consistently, the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police could not have acted upon the unverified incamera statements. No arguments are advanced to urge that the production of such incamera statements before the Deputy Commissioner of Police is insufficient and application of mind qua such verified statements can be pressed into service to demonstrate the subjective satisfaction. We are, therefore, not required to consider that aspect. 21] The petitioners have relied upon a Division Bench judgment in case of Mr. Pradeep Somnath Gupta vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 4845 delivered by this Court. In paragraph no.7 of the said judgment, the Court has observed as under : “7. It is seen from the show cause notice dated 19th December, 2012 that Incamera statements of two witnesses, witness (a) & witness (b), do not make any mention of the date of incident and also the place of incident. These material details which must have been mentioned in the gist of the confidential statements of the witnesses reproduced in the show cause notice to enable the proposed externee to know as to what case he has to meet in the externment proceedings. With their absence, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the show cause notice, one must say, violates the principles of natural justice rendering the first impugned order based upon the show cause notice as illegal and bad in law.” 22] This paragraph no.7 does not lay down a law that incamera statements must be reproduced as part of the show cause notice and gist thereof must be communicated along with the show cause notice to the petitioner. The observations have been made in particular facts of the said case where it appears that the incamera statements were reproduced in the show cause notice. We only observed that if the material particulars like date, time and place of the incident in which the witness is involved are communicated to the person to be externed, indirectly the identity of such witness may be disclosed. 23] Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are allowed. We only observed that if the material particulars like date, time and place of the incident in which the witness is involved are communicated to the person to be externed, indirectly the identity of such witness may be disclosed. 23] Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are allowed. The order of exernment dated 22.01.2015 in Writ Petition No.604 of 2015, the order of externment dated 02.04.2014 in Writ Petition No.642 of 2015 and the order of externment dated 13.02.2014 in Writ Petition No.693 of 2015, are quashed and set aside. Needless to mention that, consequently, the orders in appeals in respect of the appellants are also therefore quashed and set aside. 24] Writ Petition No.604 of 2015, Writ Petition No.642 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.693 of 2015, are allowed by making Rule absolute accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.