1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1651 OF 2009 Javed Nihal Ahmad Nihal Ansari .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. November 09, 2009. P.C. 1. This petition was received through Jail and challenges the order dated 7/1/2008 passed by the Superintendent of Central Prison at Thane, thereby removing the name of the petitioner from the remission register for one year. 2. The petitioner himself has admitted that he was called upon to join the work allotted to him in the Jail premises and he made representation to the effect that he should be given a suitable work in view of his qualifications. He claims that he has passed B.Com. and, therefore, the work allotted to him in the factory was not suitable to him. It is his case that though he was called upon to work in the factory section, he was not informed as to which section and what kind of work he was required to do. 3. Show cause notice was issued to him on 8/11/2007 and he had submitted 2 his reply. On 7/1/2008 the impugned order was passed and the same has been approved by the learned District and Sessions Judge. 4. We have perused the affidavits filed by Smt. Swati Madhav Sathe, Superintendent of Nasik Central Prison, as at present and the affidavit filed by Shri Yogesh Desai, who is presently the Superintendent of Central Prison at Thane and as per the said affidavit the petitioner was allotted work in the factory section on 20/8/2007 and he ought to have reported there. Instead, he did not report to the factory section where there are number of trades i.e. carpentry, power looms, stitching, bakery etc. and this was refused by the petitioner. 5. We do not see any procedural error in passing the impugned order and in any case we are informed that the petitioner is likely to be released towards the end of December, 2009. 6. No case is made out to cause interference in the order passed by the Superintendent, Central Prison at Thane and hence the petition is rejected. 7. This order be communicated to the petitioner in the concerned jail. (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)