1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.212 OF 2010 KAKA @ NAMDEORAO MAGAR V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Shri Abhishek Kulkarni, Advocate (amicus curiae) for petitioner & Shri N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & S.S.SHINDE,JJ. Dated : 22.3.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. Though earlier time was granted by this Court to learned APP to file affidavit, no affidavit has been filed so far. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge-3, Aurangabad dt. 7.11.2009. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) by the trial Judge. Said judgment and order was challenged in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2007, which has also been heard and decided by this Court. Indisputably, the convict is 2 undergoing the punishment. 4. The petitioner has fairly conceded that he over stayed for 39 days outside the jail, when he was released on parole. He has assigned a reason therefor. On that ground it has been proposed by the Special Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad on 11.9.2009 to debit 78 days out of his remission period by way of punishment. A proposal was made to the learned Sessions Judge by the authority concerned. The learned Sessions Judge considered the said proposal and by order dt. 7.11.2009, directed to debit 156 days from the remission permissible to the petitioner. Said order is subjected to challenge in this writ petition. 5. The impugned order is cryptic one. It has been passed without referring to the provisions, either in the Jail Manual, any other Statute or Rules concerned. One fails to understand the considerations or application of mind by the court concerned. To know the reasons, while allowing or rejecting the application / petition is the human right vested with the party concerned. The reasons must be communicated to the party concerned by the order and more specifically when the order is passed by the judicial officer or any authority. We fail to find any reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge, while accepting the said proposal. We are inclined to allow the writ petition with certain directions. 6. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned order is 3 quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, for disposal in accordance with the provisions of law within four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this court. Registrar (J) shall communicate this order to the concerned on/or before 2.4.2010. 7. Rule made partly absolute accordingly. 8. Fees of Shri Abhishek Kulkarni, learned Advocate (amicus curiae) is quantified at Rs.3,000/- (Rs.Three thousand only/-). (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl