1 Cri.W.P.No.467 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.467 OF 2011 Vinod Bapurao Sontakke, Convict No.6699, Central Prison, Aurangabad ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr K.U.More, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner Mr S.D.Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 13th July 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By a communication sent by the petitioner through jail, which was registered as a Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner takes exception to an order dated 3/5th June 2010, by which his application seeking his release on furlough came to be rejected by the respondents. The perusal of the impugned order discloses that one of the reasons ascribed by the authorities for rejecting the application of the petitioner was that Criminal Writ Petition No.344 of 2010 was pending in this Court. The aforesaid writ petition came to be finally decided by the judgment/order of this Court dated 28.4.2010. It appears that pursuant to the liberty granted to the petitioner in the earlier writ petition i.e. Criminal Writ Petition No.1098 of 2009, the petitioner had submitted an application afresh on 6.3.2010. This was a 2 Cri.W.P.No.467 of 2011 liberty granted by the Court and, therefore, Division Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No.344 of 2010 directed the respondents to decide the said application/representation as expeditiously as possible. Curiously, in the impugned order the aforesaid writ petition is shown as pending and it is one of the grounds to reject the application filed by the petitioner. 3. According to us, this exhibits a total non application of mind by the authority, who has decided the application of the petitioner. If the said writ petition came to be allowed, it cannot be countenance that the authority refers to the said petition as pending. We, therefore, allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, within two weeks from today, uninfluenced by the earlier order rejecting the application of the petitioner. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. 5. We quantify the fees payable to Mr K.U.More, learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- (Rs.One thousand five hundred). ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/467.11criwp) 3 Cri.W.P.No.467 of 2011