1 16 wp.1605.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1605 OF 2010 Vilas Tatoba Chag. ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent ----- Mr. Shreeram Shirsat a/w Mr. Manohar Kandalkar for the Petitioner. Mr. A.S.Gadkari, APP for the Respondent/ State. ----- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATE : 17 th September, 2010. P.C. 1 This petition is filed through jail. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the period spent by the Petitioner at Ratnagiri Prison between 26 th February, 2006 to 22 nd May, 2007 has not been reckoned for the purpose of considering the Petitioner’s application for remission. That position can be discerned from the communication received by the Prison Authority at Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai dated 11 th November, 2009 sent by the Senior Jailor, Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai. 2 It is noticed that in the past, the Petitioner had to file Writ Petition in this Court bearing Writ Petition No. 1932 of 2006, where he 2 16 wp.1605.10 had challenged the order of transferring him to Ratnagari Prison from Nashik Prison by way of punishment. In the said petition, however, the stand taken by the Respondents-Authorities was that the transfer of Petitioner was not by way of punishment, but on administrative ground. The writ petition was disposed on 06 th October, 2006 directing the authorities to treat the Petitioner on par with other inmates of the jail. In spite of this position, we fail to understand as to how in the subsequent communication now sent by the Senior Most Jailor treating the very same period as transfer by way of punishment. This is obviously an error committed by the concerned authority. 3 In the circumstances, we direct the authority to re-examine the case of the Petitioner for computing the remission period and in particular, in respect of time spent by the Petitioner in Ratnagiri Central Prison between 26 th February, 2006 to 22 nd May, 2007 as not by way of punishment, but only due to administrative reason. If the transfer was on account of administrative reason, the Petitioner would be entitled for the benefit under Rule 7 and Rule 7 (d) of the Remission Rules will have no application to this case. 4 Petition is disposed of with direction to the appropriate authority to consider the case of the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than six weeks from the receipt of this order. Petition disposed of accordingly. 3 16 wp.1605.10 5 Court expresses word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the advocate appointed to espouse the cause of the Petitioner. 6 Copy of this order be forwarded to the Petitioner who is in jail, forthwith. [ U.D. SALVI, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]