{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.420 OF 2010 Sayyad Gani Sayyad Abdul Rahim PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs.R.R.Mane & Mrs.S.T.Kazi, Advocates for petitioner (appointed) Mr. B.V.Wagh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 7th September 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made 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. We had accordingly {2} appointed Advocate Mrs.R.R.Mane, as counsel to represent the petitioner. Subsequently her name came to be deleted and we had appointed advocate Mrs.S.T.Kazi, as counsel to represent the petitioner before us. However, we noticed that the reason, as to why Mrs.Mane was not present on the earlier occasion, was a justifiable reason and, therefore, with the consent of advocate Mrs.Kazi, we have heard Mrs.Mane on behalf of the petitioner. On the previous occasions, we had heard advocate Mrs.Kazi on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The limited grievance of the petitioner, in this petition, is that the jail authorities had removed the name of the petitioner from the remission register thereby holding that the petitioner is not entitled to be awarding remission and thereby have denied the petitioner for being considered for forwarding to the open jail to Paithan. Various grounds have been urged in the petition and one of them is that as per Rule 23 of the Remission System, the Superintendent of Prison is only entitled to deduct 60 days from the remission on account of late surrendering by a convict and higher punishment i.e. forfeiture of remission or removal from the remission register can only be passed with the previous sanction of the Inspector General of Prisons. Further it is urged that certain prisoners, whose case is similar to that of the petitioner, have been sent to the open jail at Paithan. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents have exercised a method of picking and choosing of a particular prisoner and have not exercised the {3} same yardstick in dealing with all the prisoners. 4. Respondents, in their affidavit in reply, have pointed out to us that the powers of the Inspector General of Prisons have been delegated to the Superintendent of Prisons and consequently the order passed by the Superintendent of Prison cannot be faulted on that score. The respondents, in their affidavit, have given two instances as to why the order impugned in the present petition came to be passed. They have also explained that the case of the other prisoners, though similar to that of the petitioner, was treated differently on account of their subsequent conduct in the prison. 5. According to us, the case of the petitioner requires to be looked at afresh by the authorities. In that light of the matter, therefore, we permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents and further direct the respondents to deal with and decide the said representation in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks of its submission and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. In that light of the matter, therefore, we maintain the order impugned in the present petition giving liberty to the petitioner to file a petition afresh challenging the aforesaid order, in the event the representation is decided against the petitioner. 6. Rule, therefore, is made absolute on the terms {4} indicated above with no order as to costs. Writ petition stands disposed of. We, however quantify the fees payable to Advocate Mrs.R.R.Mane and advocate Mrs.S.T.Kazi, at Rs.1,500/- each. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/cwp420-10