1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.799 OF 2009 Mohamed Moin Faridulla Qureshi ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri A.P. Piratwad, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for the respondents ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 15th September, 2009. ORAL ORDER (PER DAVARE, J.): 1. Perused. 2. The prisoner convict Mohamed Moin Faridulla Qureshi has preferred an application for furlough leave on 19.9.2008. D.I.G. (Prisons) called police report. However, it was adverse. Hence, D.I.G. (Prisons), Aurangabad rejected the said application by order dated 21.7.2009. Being aggrieved and 2 dissatisfied by the said order, the petitioner convict has preferred the present Writ Petition challenging the said order and requesting to release the petitioner convict on furlough leave. 3. The respondents opposed the present Criminal Writ Petition vehemently. Shri Sudhakar s/o Shankar Kamble, Jailer, Group-I, Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad filed affidavit- in-reply, contending that after receipt of the application of the prisoner convict dated 19.9.2008, D.I.G. Prisons had called the police report. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai submitted the police report on 14.10.2008 and same was adverse and, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 21.7.2009 came to be passed rejecting the application of the prisoner convict, and accordingly, supported the said order. 4. Heard respective counsel for the parties. 5. Admittedly the petitioner convict had preferred an application for furlough earlier in the year 2007 i.e. application dated 17.9.2007 which was rejected by D.I.G. Prisons vide order passed on 8.10.2008. Hence, petitioner had preferred Criminal Writ Petition No.213/2009 challenging the said order therein. The earlier Bench of this Court allowed the said petition by order 3 dated 2.4.2009, and issued directions to release the petitioner convict on furlough for 14 days on the terms and conditions specified therein. Accordingly, the prisoner convict was released on furlough leave on 28.4.2009 and he surrendered on due date i.e. on 13.5.2009 in pursuance of the application for the year 2007 i.e. 17.9.2007. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner prisoner has preferred application for furlough leave for the year 2008 i.e. on 19.9.2008 which came to be rejected belatedly on 21.7.2009 as aforesaid. 7. Keeping in mind the said background, Shri Kaldate, learned A.P.P. invited our attention to Note 3 of Rule 3 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which reads as under : “Rule 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Note 1.-- ............................................. Note 2.-- ............................................. “Note 3.-- If at any time, a prisoner who could have been granted furlough is either not granted or is refused the same, the period for which he could have been granted the furlough shall not be carried forward but shall lapse.” 4 8. It is explicit from the said note that a prisoner, who could have been granted furlough is either not granted it or is refused the same, the period for which he could have been granted the furlough, shall not be carried forward, but shall lapse. Hence, there is apparent embargo to the application of the petitioner convict, for the year 2008 i.e. application in hand dated 19.9.2008 on the particular scenario that the petitioner convict was granted furlough leave for the year 2007 recently, and hence, furlough of 2008 cannot be carried forward and same shall lapse, and hence, present petition bears no substance. 9. While passing the aforesaid order, it was noticed that, the prison authorities and Commissionerate do not adhere to the provisions contained in the Circular issued by the Government of Maharashtra in Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, bearing No.PAR 1007/C.No.327/PRS-3 dated 1st August, 2007 and do not decide the applications preferred by the prisoners convicts for furlough/ parole leave within the stipulated period. Hence, the concerned authorities shall strictly follow the time frame stipulated in the aforesaid Circular. 10. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction 5 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence, present petition deserves to be rejected and same stands rejected accordingly. 11. Copy of this order be forwarded to Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] fmp/crwp79909