1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No. 259/2009 Tejrao Namdeo Ingle Convict No. C-1694, Central Prison, Amravati. ... Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. Through Secretary, Home Department,Mantralaya Mumbai. 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati. ... Respondents .... Mr. Vinay Dahat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Doifode, A.P.P. for the respondents. .... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ . DATE : 30/06/2009 JUDGMENT : (PER A.P.LAVANDE,J) Heard Mr. Dahat, learned counsel for the petitioner 2 and Mr. Doifode, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. 2. Rule. 3. By consent of the parties heard forthwith. 4. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15th May, 2008 passed by the respondent no.1 refusing furlough to the petitioner. The main ground on which the furlough has been refused is that when the petitioner was released on furlough on 17.11.2003 for the period of two weeks he was late by 1123 days and he was arrested and brought back to the prison. In our considered opinion the respondent no.1 was justified in rejecting furlough to the petitioner in terms of Rule 4(10) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 on this ground. Therefore, no case is made out for interference by this court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In so far as the cut in remission is concerned, the reply filed on behalf of the respondents discloses that since the petitioner was late by 1123 days there was cut of 160 days’ remission and his name was removed from the Register for 3 the period of five years. We find no illegality in the action taken by the jail authorities. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in this regard also. 6. In the result, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. 7. The fees payable to Advocate Mr. Vinay Dahat who was appointed to appear on behalf of the petitioner is quantified at Rs. 1000/-. JUDGE JUDGE patle