1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1072 OF 2009 Shri Kishan Bhimaji Jagdale ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ----- Miss Shobha Adkine, Advocate for the petitioner (appointed) Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent ----- CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 7th January, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition. When this petition was placed for admission before this Court, we appointed Advocate Miss Shobha Adkine as a counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition. The limited grievance of the petitioner in 2 this petition is that the petitioner has completed the age of 65 years and, therefore, is entitled to be released prematurely. It appears that, an application recommending the premature release of the petitioner came to be forwarded to the competent authorities some time in February 2009. The affidavit-in-reply submitted on behalf of the respondents at paragraph 9 clearly indicates that the said proposal of the petitioner for premature release is pending consideration with the Government. It also appears that the petitioner has submitted birth certificate from the competent authorities in respect of his age. According to the petitioner, the birth certificate clearly indicates that the petitioner has completed the age of 65 years. 3. Since the proposal of the petitioner is pending consideration with the Government, we allow this petition to the limited extent of directing the Government to decide the said proposal in accordance with law particularly in accordance with the resolution of the Government, dated 10.1.2006 and such further resolutions if any, which may have been issued thereafter, within eight weeks from today and communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. 3 5. We, however, quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.2000/-. 6. Copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of the Court, be supplied to learned A.P.P. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ P.V. HARDAS, J.] fmp/cwp1072.09