Cri. W.P. 279/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 279 OF 2011 Kaka @ Anil Namdeorao Magar Age 45 yrs., Occu. Nil, R/o. Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. ....Respondent. Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for petitioner (appointed). Mr. K.G. Patil, APP for respondent/State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 27th April, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner is prisoner of Central Prison, Harsul, Aurangabad. It is submitted that on 23th February 2010 petitioner filed an application for parole. By an order dated 21st of May 2010, the Jail authorities released the petitioner on 30 days parole. By a communication dated 22nd June 2010 the petitioner requested for extension of parole. By an order dated 8.7.2010 the authorities granted further extension of 30 days. The petitioner was to surrender himself before Jail authorities on 9.8.2010. As he failed, he was arrested on 26.9.2010 and confined to Jail. The petitioner overstayed 47 days more than the permitted period of his Cri. W.P. 279/11 2 parole leave. 3. The learned counsel submitted that the Jail authorities initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Prisons Act and the Rules framed thereunder and imposed punishment of forfeiture of 235 days of remission earned by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said order. The petitioner prayed for releasing him on parole leave. Learned counsel Shri. Bedre submits that appropriate provisions and the principles of natural justice were not followed in respect of the inquiry/proceedings initiated by the Jail authorities against the petitioner. The punishment is harsh and therefore, interference was called for in the impugned order. 4. The learned APP Shri. Patil placed on record necessary documents which included show cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Police, Central Prison which is dated 27.9.2010. The copy of the approval granted by DIG dated 2.2.2011, copy of the judicial appraisal by District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad dated 5.4.2011 and Government Circular dated 22nd May 2009. The learned APP submitted that appropriate procedure was followed, principles of natural justice were complied with and after getting the approval of DIG, Prison and judicial appraisal by the learned District and Sessions Judge, the punishment was imposed and order was implemented. The counsel submitted that Cri. W.P. 279/11 3 the authorities did not find any justifiable or reasonable ground for the petitioner to overstay the sanctioned leave period. The petitioner was ultimately arrested and confined to Jail. This being a serious lapse on the part of petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency from this Court. The counsel submitted that condoning overstay of leave period would create indiscipline in the Jail administration. Therefore, the learned APP submits that as the petitioner failed to point out any error in the impugned order, the petition shall be dismissed. 5. We have perused the documents placed on record, the provisions of Chapter 27 of the Prison Manual, and the relevant circulars and the rules framed under the Prisons Law. We find that basic requirement in respect of imposition of punishment have been followed by the Jail authority. The authority obtained judicial appraisal in respect of the proposed punishment. Prior approval was obtained by the Superintendent of Jail in respect of the imposition of the punishment. In spite of Jail authority granting extension of parole period, the petitioner overstayed and was to be ultimately arrested by the police. Such conduct on the part of the petitioner is in conflict with the Jail administration and discipline. In exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, we do not find that petitioner's prayer deserves consideration. We do not find any error in the order passed by the Jail authorities. There is no merit in the petition. It is dismissed accordingly. Cri. W.P. 279/11 4 6. The petitioner has made an application to the Registry of this Court for grant of fresh parole. The petitioner is entitled to file fresh application to the Jail authorities in that regard. If such application is made, the Jail authorities would dealt with the same in accordance with law. 7. The High Court Legal Services Sub Committee Aurangabad is directed to pay professional fees to the counsel appointed for the petitioner. 8. Rule is discharged. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/criwp279.11