IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1341 OF 1994 ALONG WITH WRIT PETITIONS 3, 8, 109, 135, 357, 540, 995, 1115, 1127, 1199, 1200, 1210, 1235, 1282, 1323 ALL OF 1995 Satyawan @ Shravan Govind Phatak, etc. etc. ...Petitioners Versus Inspector of Police & Anr., etc.etc. ...Respondents ...... APPEARANCES AS NOTIFIED ON THE BOARD OF 17/03/2005 ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 17, 2005. MARCH 17, 2005. MARCH 17, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. In all these Petitions, exception is taken to the externment orders passed as back as in 1994 by the competent Authority against the Petitioners. The Petitioners have suffered externment period partly. This Court while entertaining the present Petitions, granted interim relief in favour of the Petitioners. Due to efflux of time, the purpose for which the externment orders were passed, must : 2 : have come to an end. 2. In this backdrop, I am inclined to dispose of these Petitions with direction that the remaining period of externment shall not be enforced against the Petitioners, keeping all other questions open. 3. This course is adopted in view of the exposition in the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Baby Naaz vs. Union of India reported in Baby Naaz vs. Union of India reported in Baby Naaz vs. Union of India reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 163 (II) 1990 (Supp) SCC 163 (II) 1990 (Supp) SCC 163 (II). 4. I am conscious of the fact that there is already an order passed by this Court on March 19, 1997 making reference in respect of questions formulated in the order to be decided by the larger Bench. However, for the nature of order that I propose to pass and which is based on the decision of the Apex Court referred to above, Counsel for the Petitioners fairly accept that it will not be necessary to decide the said questions. 5. Accordingly, these Petitions are disposed : 3 : of on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.