1 Cri.W.P.No.560 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.560 OF 2004 Vinod Ramdas Shahu, Convict No.3567, Open Prison, Paithan, District Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mrs Sanghmitra Wadmare, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner Mr S.D.Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 5th July 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) 1. This is a petition, which principally concerns the non- consideration of the application of the petitioner for his release on parole on the ground of ailment of his mother. The aforesaid application was tendered on 1.12.2003. The petitioner also contends that invariably the authorities do not decide the applications submitted by the convicts for their release on parole or furlough within the time specified by the Government from time to time. A communication raising the aforesaid grievances came to be registered as criminal Writ Petition and we had accordingly appointed Advocate Mrs Sanghmitra Wadmare, learned Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition. 2 Cri.W.P.No.560 of 2004 2. The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents does not disclose as to whether the petitioner had ultimately been released on parole. However, because of the passage of time, the aforesaid application and the decision thereon is not necessary. The other grievance of the petitioner that the applications submitted by the convicts are not generally decided within time needs consideration. 3. Mrs Wadmare, learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner has urged before us that the government has issued circulars from time to time specifying the period within which the applications of the convicts for their release either on parole or on furlough should be decided. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that invariably the time frame as specified by the government is never adhered to by the respondents while deciding the said applications. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor states that the circular, which is in force now specifies that the applications should be decided within 45 days of its receipt. We have also come across various circumstances of the convicts complaining of delayed decisions of their applications. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition partly and direct the respondents-authorities to decide the applications submitted by the convicts for their release either on parole or on furlough within the period specified by the government from time to time. The respondents should scrupulously adhered to the time frame provided by the government and this Court would not countenance any delay in the decision of the said applications. 3 Cri.W.P.No.560 of 2004 4. We accordingly partly allow this petition by making Rule absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor undertakes to communicate this order to the respondents. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- (Rs.One thousand five hundred). 6. Copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar of this Court be provided to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/560.04criwp)