1 Criminal W.P.No.909 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.909 OF 2010 Ganesh Rajesingh Girase PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mrs.Kalpana Mutatkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. (Appointed) Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 20/12/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A communication sent through jail by the petitioner, came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition. The Division Bench at Bombay, by order dated 10/08/2010, transferred this petition to this Bench, as the petitioner was the resident of Dhule District, who is convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule and presently the petitioner was undergoing his sentence in the District Open Prison at Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. On the transfer of this petition when the matter was listed before this Court, this Court appointed Adv.Mrs.Kalpana Mutatkar, learned counsel to 2 Criminal W.P.No.909 of 2010 represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has undergone virtually 11 years of imprisonment, the petitioner has not been regularly released on furlough though he is entitled to in Law, but has been intermittently. The petitioner therefore prays for furlough leave, which have lapsed, may be granted to him. 4. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and in the affidavit in reply, it is specifically stated that as per the Maharashtra Prisoners (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 and particularly Note 3 states, “If at any time, a prisoner who could have been granted furlough is either not granted or is refused the same the period for which he could have been granted the furlough shall not be carried forward but shall lapse.” 5. In the light of the aforesaid provision and in the light of the fact that there is no provision entitling a transfer to avail lapsed furlough leave, we dismiss this petition. Accordingly, Rule stands discharged. We, however, quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/-. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/DEC. 2010/cri-w-p-909-10