{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.839 OF 2010 Sukhdeo Bhagwan Gaikwad PETITIONER Age-Major, Occ-Nil R/o Wasmat, Dist-Hingoli Present in Central Jail, Aurangabad VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS 2. Deputy Inspector General of Prison Aurangabad 3. Superintendent, Central Jail, Aurangabad 4. Police Station, Kurunda, Tq-Basmat, Dist-Hingoli ....... Mr.Sashikant S.Londhe, Advocate for the petitioner (Appointed) Mr.N.R.Shaikh, A.P.P. For respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 6th October 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of {2} the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A communication sent by the petitioner, through jail, has been registered as Criminal Writ Petition and accordingly we had appointed advocate Mr.Shashikant Londhe, learned counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3. The limited grievance of the petitioner, in this petition, is that his application seeking his release on Furlough has not been decided by the respondents and the same is kept pending for want of receipt of a report from respondent No.4 i.e. Police Station, Kurunda, Tq-Basmat, Dist-Hingoli. In the light of the limited relief, which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 4. It appears that a revised report has been called for from respondent No.4 i.e. Police Station, Kurunda, Tq-Basmat, Dist-Hongoli. The aforesaid report has not been submitted by respondent No.4 and as a result, the application of the petitioner seeking his release on furlough, has been kept pending. We deprecate the enormous delay in submission of the report by respondent No.4 and, therefore, allow this petition and direct respondent No.4 to submit the revised police report within one week from today and further direct the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner seeking his release on furlough, in {3} accordance with law, within two weeks of the receipt of the report from respondent No.4. 5. 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.1,500/-. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/cwp839-10