1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 530 OF 2010 Chandu @ Chandrakant Karbhari Tribhuvan ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Ms. Shilpa L. Awchar, advocate for the petitioner (appointed) Mr. N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM: S.B. DESHMUKH & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 28TH JULY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 We heard learned counsel Ms. Shilpa Awchar (appointed) for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. Mr. Shaikh, for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the counsel for the parties heard finally. 3 The order passed by the respondent on 9.3.2010 marked by letter “X” in this writ petition is challenged by the petitioner. We have seen the said order dated 9.3.2010 which is under challenge in view of the amendment to the writ petition, as permitted by this court. 2 Amendment has been effected as para 5-1. We have considered the affidavit in reply filed by the State. It is affirmed by Mr. Govind s/o Phulsing Chavan, working as Tahsildar in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. It appears from the record and it is not disputed by the petitioner prisoner that the order passed on 29.8.2009 by the answering respondent was under challenge before this court in writ petition No. 1056 of 2009. Rejection of parole leave was under challenge in that writ petition. The present prisoner was the petitioner in that writ petition also. After hearing both the sides, this court passed order on 18.12.2009 directing the respondents to release the petitioner on parole leave for a period, which he had applied for, on such terms and conditions. The said order is annexed as Exhibit “R-1”. With this order writ petition No. 1056 of 2009 was finally disposed of. In para 5 of the affidavit in reply, it is stated that after disposal of writ petition No. 1056 of 2009, the respondents had passed order on 7.1.2010 and the petitioner was released on parole leave for 30 days. Copy of the said order is annexed with reply as Exhibit “R-2” on record. In para 6, it has been clarified that the respondents have thereafter received application dated 11.2.2010 from the petitioner on 15.2.2010 for extension of parole leave by 30 days, which was already granted in his favour. Police report were called as per the procedure by communication dated 16.2.2010. Inspite of communication dated 3 16.2.2010, report was not received immediately from Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aurangabad. It was not received till 8.3.2010. On 9.3.2010, the respondents were constrained, in absence of report, from the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad to pass order. In para 7, it has been further stated by the affaint that before passing order by this Court in writ petition No. 298 of 2010, the respondent had passed order on the application of the petitioner on 9.3.2010. However, the said order could not be produced in this court or brought to the notice of this Court. This court, therefore, directed the respondents by passing an order in writ petition No. 298 of 2010, on 25.3.2010, to decide the application of the petitioner dated 11.2.2010 on or before 3.4.2010. Since the order was already passed on the application of the petitioner dated 11.2.2010 on 9.3.2010, it is stated in para 7 by the affaint that fresh order is not passed by the answering respondent. After bringing this fact to the notice of this Court, it has been stated that there is no contempt committed by the respondent. The petitioner himself, according to the affaint, has surrendered before the authorities on 9.3.2010. This affidavit appears to have been affirmed by the affaint on 21.7.2010. 4 We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have seen all earlier orders passed by this court and also the orders passed by the respondents. Indisputably, the petitioner had enjoyed the original 4 parole leave granted. The application for extension of parole leave has been rejected by the authorities concerned. We have considered the rejection and merits of the contention raised on behalf of the parties. Considering the facts situation in the present case, it is not possible to accede the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent has committed contempt of the order passed by this court on 25.3.2010, in writ petition No. 298 of 2010. We do not see any willful disobedience/breach committed by the respondents. 5 In our view, order impugned order cannot be faulted with. No case of judicial review is made out. Rule discharged. Writ petition is dismissed. 6 We quantify Rs.2000/- towards the fees and expenses to be paid to the counsel appointed by us Ms. Shilpa Awchar). We make it clear that the petitioner is at liberty to apply afresh for Parole or Furlough leave as per the provisions of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959. In that case, the authorities shall consider and decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/ 5