1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 87 OF 2010 Kishor s/o Sukhdeo Satpute, Age : Major, Occu.Nil, R/o At Post Haregaon (Teenwadi), Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar (At present in Open Prison) ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Deputy Inspector General (Prison), Aurangabad 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Open District Prison, Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr A.C. Darandale, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner; Mr K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 24th February, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P. V. HARDAS, J.) 2 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is decided finally at the stage of admission. 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail has been registered as Criminal Writ Petition. The communication complains of inaction on the part of the respondents in deciding the application of the petitioner seeking his release on furlough. The petitioner further prays for directing the respondents to initiate action against the concerned Officers for their failure to decide the application of the petitioner within the stipulated period as is contemplated under the Circular dated 1.8.2007. 3. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply it is stated that on account of delayed submission of the report, the Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) could not decide the application. It is further stated that the application of the petitioner would be decided in accordance with law within a period of three months from today. The learned A.P.P. further states that the application submitted by the petitioner on 6.9.2009 has been decided on 23.2.2010. 4. We accept the statement of the learned A.P.P. that the application of the petitioner has since been decided. In respect of the relief which the 3 petitioner has claimed for issuance of directions for conducting the inquiry, it would be useful to refer that the petitioner has asked for a writ of mandamus and undisputedly the petitioner has not made any demand to the respondent - authorities for initiation of action against the respondents. A writ of mandamus can only be granted if a demand is made and the demand is not met by the respondents. A reference in this behalf may usefully be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in (1977) 1 SCC 340 and AIR 1976 S.C. 1654, State of Haryana & anr. vs. Chanan Mal & ors.. We, therefore, relegate the petitioner to make a demand to the respondents for the relief which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition. 5. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. Rule stands discharged. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.2,000/-. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp87.10