1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No. 13/2010 ( Ramesh Shobhelal Barve .vs. State of Mah. And another. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. V.A. Dhabe, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for Respondents. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 08, 2010. Head. Mr. Dhabe, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jaiswal, learned APP for the Respondents. The grievance of the petitioner who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life for having committed offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC is that his application for furlough has not been dealt with in accordance with law by the authorities. On behalf of the respondents, the Superintendent, Morshi Open Prison has filed an affidavit stating that by order dated 9.12.2009 the petitioner has been released on furlough upon executing personal bond. A copy of the said order has also been annexed to the affidavit. We have been informed that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was actually released on furlough and he has surrendered back to the prison. As such the cause of action in the present petition does not 2 survive. Although the cause of action no more survives, we would like to deal with one more aspect of the matter which has come to our notice. By order dated 9.12.2009 the petitioner has been released on furlough upon execution of personal bond. We find that grant of furlough leave by the competent authority to the petitioner on personal bond is contrary to the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 and also contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra .vs. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar reported in JT 2006 (4) SC 576. We are surprised that respondent no.1 who is the competent authority to grant furlough/parole has passed the order granting furlough in clear breach of the Rules and that of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Darvakar (supra). It is also pertinent to note that this judgment was delivered in the appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra and another. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct Inspector General of Prisons, Pune to circulate the said judgment to all the competent authorities in the State of Maharashtra so that henceforth no oder is passed by any competent authority either in breach of the Rules or contrary to the judgment in the case of Suresh Darvakar (supra). The DIG Prisons shall circulate the judgment within a period of four weeks from today and report compliance to this Court within a period of 8 weeks from today. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The fees of Advocate Mr. V.A. Dhabe, who has 3 been appointed to appear on behalf of the petitioner, are quantified at Rs.750/-. JUDGE JUDGE HALWAI