cwp553.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.553 OF 2011 Sayyad Gani Sayyad Abdul Rahim, Age-Major, Occu:Nil, R/o-Presently Central Prison, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Deputy Inspector of General, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, 3) The Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Aurangabad, 4) Additional General Director (Prisons), Maharashtra State, Pune-1. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mrs. Sabahat T. Kazi Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4. ... cwp553.11 2 CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 18TH JULY, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.]: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Petition is decided finally at the stage of admission. 2. Leave is granted to the learned counsel for the Petitioner to amend the Petition by joining Additional Director General (Prisons), Maharashtra State, Pune-1, as Respondent. Amendment be carried out forthwith. The learned A.P.P. accepts notice on behalf of the added Respondent. 3. The Petitioner, by this Petition, prays for issuance of necessary directions to the Respondents for deciding the representation of the cwp553.11 3 Petitioner dated 2nd February, 2011, which is pending consideration with the Respondents. 4. The Petitioner has filed Criminal Writ Petition No.420 of 2010 praying therein, that the jail authorities be directed to reinstate the name of the Petitioner in the remission register and also for directing the jail authorities to consider the Petitioner entitled to be awarded remission and forwarded to the open prison at Paithan. This Court, while allowing the Petition by Judgment dated 7th September 2010, permitted the Petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the Respondents and also directed the Respondents to decide representation in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks of its submission. The Petitioner, accordingly, submitted a representation on 4th October, 2010. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the aforesaid representation has not been decided by the Respondents. The Petitioner, thereafter submitted cwp553.11 4 a representation on 2nd February, 2011 and therefore, now prayed for issuance of writ directing the Respondents to decide the representation of the Petitioner. 5. The representation dated 4th October, 2010, it appears, has not been decided despite the directions issued by this Court. We cannot countenance such attitude on the part of the Respondents. However, since the Petitioner has submitted a fresh representation on 2nd February, 2011, we direct the Respondents to decide the said representation, if pending, in accordance with law, within a period of 2 weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the Petitioner. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. 7. The learned A.P.P. undertakes to cwp553.11 5 communicate this order to the Respondents. . Copy of this order, duly authenticated, be provided to the learned counsel for the parties, on request. [A.V. POTDAR, J.] [P.V. HARDAS, J.] asb/JULY11