1 cr-wp-620-11 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 620 OF 2011 Jayashree Ramchandra Mayekar ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Ms. Rebecca Gonsalvez Advocate for Petitioner Mrs. S.V.Gajare A.P.P. for the State .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 15, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER P.V.HARDAS, J.] : 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is finally heard at the stage of admission. 3 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the placement of the petitioner in category 1(d) of the 1992 Guidelines. The petitioner also prays that she should be placed in category 1(b) of the Guidelines of the year 2008 which are applicable to 2 cr-wp-620-11 the case of the petitioner. 4 The learned A.P.P. states on instructions that respondent 1 would reconsider its decision regarding placing of the petitioner in category 1(d) of the 1992 Guidelines as well as applicability of the 2008 Guidelines to the case of the petitioner. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. 5 We accordingly make rule absolute in terms of the statement of the learned A.P.P. that the respondent-State would reconsider its decision of placing the petitioner in category 1(d) of the 1992 Guidelines and would also examine the applicability of the 2008 Guidelines to the case of the petitioner. 6 Learned A.P.P. further states that the aforesaid exercise would be carried out by respondent 1 within a period of six weeks from today. We accordingly make Rule absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. [N.D.DESHPANDE, J.] [ P.V.HARDAS, J. ]