1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1074 OF 2009 Pandurang Tukaram Lodhe, Age : Major, Occ. Convict No.3558, in Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Inspector General of Prison, Maharashtra State, Pune 3. The Superintendent, Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mrs Bharati Gunjal, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner; Mr K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 8th January, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P. V. HARDAS, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the petitioner this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail has been registered as Criminal Writ Petition. We had accordingly appointed Advocate Mrs Bharati Gunjal as a Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us when the petition was listed for admission. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that he has already undergone 14 years of actual imprisonment and as per the relevant Government Resolutions in force, the petitioner is entitled to be released prematurely. 3. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. It appears that a proposal for premature release of the petitioner has been forwarded to the Government and the proposal of the petitioner dated 11.4.2008 is said to be pending consideration with the Government. In that light of the matter, according to us the interest of justice would be subserved by directing the respondent no.2 to decide the pending proposal of the petitioner in accordance with law, within a stipulated period. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and respondent no.1 is directed to decide the pending proposal of the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to 3 costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.2,000/-. 6. Copy duly authenticated be provided to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp1074.09