{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.569 OF 2010 Chandrabhan Ramkrishna Patil (Chaudhary) Age-73 years, Occ-Nil R/o Presently Central Prison Harsul Dist- Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. Deputy Inspector General (Prison) Central Division, Aurangabad 3. Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. I.S.Thorat, Advocate for the petitioner (Appointed) Mr. K.B.Chaudhari, Addl.P.P. For respondents State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 23rd August 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the {2} stage of admission. 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition. This Court had accordingly appointed Mr.I.S.Thorat, learned counsel, to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that he be released on account of the fact that the petitioner has undergone 14 years of actual imprisonment. It appears that the petitioner came to be convicted by the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on 19.02.1996 for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was accordingly sentenced to imprisonment for life. The petitioner placed reliance on the Government Resolution dated 10.01.2006 in which the Government has directed release of convicts undergoing imprisonment for life, who have completed 65 years of age and are physically weak and those who have completed actual imprisonment of 14 years. 4. Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, learned Addl.P.P. on behalf of the respondents, states that a proposal has accordingly been forwarded to the Government and the same is pending consideration with the respondents. According to learned Addl.P.P., the proposal is in respect of premature release of the petitioner, in the light of Government Resolutions issued by the Government {3} from time to time. Since the proposal is pending consideration with the respondents, according to us, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent Government to decide the said proposal as expeditiously as possible. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and direct the respondent Government to decide the pending proposal for premature release of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.3000/-. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/cwp569-10