- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.975/2010 Devanand Bhaurao Sanap. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Miss.Zainab Surti, Advocate appointed for petitioner. Shri N.R. Shaikh, APP for respondents. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 24.11.2010 PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. - 2 - 2] A communication sent by the petitioner through jail came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and accordingly we had appointed Advocate Miss.Zainab Surti to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. The challenge of the petitioner in this petition is restricted to the order passed by the respondents deducting 90 days remission for 30 days over-stay. The petitioner, who had been released on parole for a period of 30 days, applied for extension of the parole on 3.7.2010. It appears that the order came to be passed on 26.7.2010 declining to grant him extension. The aforesaid order came to be served on the petitioner on 29.7.2010. Meanwhile, the period of parole expired on 22.7.2010, on which date the petitioner ought to have surrendered. The petitioner, however, did not surrender within time and ultimately surrendered on 21.8.2010 i.e. practically after a month of lapsing of his parole leave. The respondents had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner giving him an opportunity to explain as to why the remission earned by the petitioner should not be deducted in accordance with the rules. The reply of the petitioner was not found favourable and accordingly the impugned order came to be passed ordering deduction of remission of 3 days for each day’s late surrender. 3] The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the Divisional Commissioner ought to have decided the application expeditiously and ought to have communicated to the petitioner before the expiry of his parole leave that the application had been rejected. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order came to be passed on 26.7.2010, on which date the original - 3 - period of parole leave had already expired. The copy of the aforesaid order was also served on the petitioner on 29.7.2010. According to us, assuming that there is infraction of the rules in deciding the application, there is no justifiable reason for the petitioner to have over-stayed. As soon as the leave period came to an end, the petitioner ought to have surrendered before the jail authorities or ought to have enquired about the fate of the application submitted by him. The petitioner surrendered before the jail 30 days after the expiry of his parole leave. 4] After considering the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP, no fault can be found with the order passed by the respondents deducting remission of 3 days for each day’s late surrender. There being no merit in the present petition, the petition deserves to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss this petition. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1500/- (rupees one thousand five hundred only). (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/cr2411103