1 wp-3394.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3394 OF 2010 Uday Kariya Devadiga. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. Mr.N.N.Gavankar i/b. Arfan Saif for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for the respondent-State. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 6th December, 2010. P.C. : This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 31st October, 2009 passed by the Section Officer, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra on the proposal regarding premature release of the petitioner. Two fold grievance has been made in this petition. Firstly, that the petitioner has been 2 wp-3394.10 wrongly categorized as escapee. Secondly, the benefit of recent guidelines issued in the year 2008, which are applicable to the petitioner’s case, have not been taken into account while deciding the petitioner’s case. Instead the same has been decided on the basis of guidelines of 1992. 2. In so far as first contention is concerned, to buttress the same, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Crim.W.P.No.437/2010 decided on 12th March 2010 (Exh.D). It appears that the principle stated in this decision has not been noticed by the Appropriate Authority. 3. Besides, we are in agreement with the argument of the petitioner that the authority was obliged to consider the latest guidelines issued in the year 2008 and, if the same were beneficial and applicable to the petitioner, his proposal for premature release ought to be decided by applying the same. This position is no more res integra. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216 has so observed. 4. Since we are inclined to relegate the petitioner before the appropriate authority, even other grievances of the petitioner can be considered 3 wp-3394.10 afresh. 5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 31st October, 2009 and restore the proposal for premature release of the petitioner before the said authority for reconsideration thereof on its own merits in accordance with law. That be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the receipt of this order. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)