{1} Cri.W.P.No.468/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.468 OF 2011 Ganesh Rajesing Girase PETITIONER Age-Major, Occ-Nil Open Jail Paithan, Aurangabad VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.Shashikant S.Londhe, Advocate for the petitioner (Appointed) Mrs.S.D.Shelke, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 20 th July 2011 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 was sent by the petitioner through jail praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order by which the remission of the petitioner came to be deducted by 22 days on account of late surrender by 11 days. We had accordingly appointed advocate Mr.Shashikant Londhe, to represent the {2} Cri.W.P.No.468/2011 petitioner in this petition before us. 3. Upon perusal of the documents, annexed to the petition, as well as the record produced by learned APP, it appears that the petitioner had applied for his release on Furlough, which came to be favourably considered by the respondents and the petitioner was accordingly released on Furlough on 23.09.2010. The period for which the Furlough was granted to the petitioner, was for 14 days and the petitioner, therefore, was under obligation to surrender on 08.10.2010. It however appears that the petitioner had forwarded an application on 29.09.2010 praying for extension of his Furlough leave, which was received by the respondents on 06.10.2010. The aforesaid application came to be rejected by the respondents and the order rejecting the extension was communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner immediately then surrendered on 19.10.2010. Thus, there was delay of 11 days and the petitioner, therefore, had been served with a show cause notice and an order ultimately came to be passed deducting his remission by 22 days for 11 days late surrender. 4. Learned APP has made available to us the order dated 07.09.2010 passed by the Special Inspector General (Prisons), Aurangabad, which was communicated to the petitioner. The reason for rejecting the application seeking extension is that an order granting extension to the petitioner could not have been communicated to him before 08.10.2010 and, therefore, his {3} Cri.W.P.No.468/2011 application, seeking extension, came to be rejected. According to us, that cannot be a valid ground for rejecting the application seeking extension. The authority has not recorded its subjective satisfaction that it did not find that any case had been made out by the petitioner for seeking extension of his Furlough leave. The order came to be passed rejecting his application for extension of Furlough leave only on the ground that the order granting extension could not have been communicated to the petitioner before 08.10.2010. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, the order rejecting application of the petitioner seeking extension of Furlough leave, is unsustainable in law. Consequently, all other consequential actions including deduction of remission also would be liable to be struck down. 5. Resultantly, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the order by which the application filed by the petitioner, seeking extension of his Furlough leave, came to be rejected and all other consequential actions, including deduction of his remission by 22 days for late surrender by11 days is also hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to learned counsel appointed for the petitioner at Rs.1500/- [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B11/cwp468-11