1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.867 OF 2009 Shamma Mohammad Shafi, Age: Major, Occ: Nil, R/o. At present Open Jail, Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Inspector General of Prisons, Pune, Maharashtra State. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Central Region, Aurangabad. 4. Superintendent, Open Jail, Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 5. Superintendent, Prison at Aurangabad. .. Respondents ... Smt. Pratibha Bharad, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G.Patil, A.P.P. for respondents. ... CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. NIRGUDE,JJ. DATE : 4th NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : PER P.V. HARDAS, J. . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally, at the stage of admission. 2. A jail communication came to be addressed by the petitioner through jail complaining therein that the respondents had not decided the application submitted by the petitioner requesting for his transfer from the Open Prison at Paithan to Open Prison at Morshi, District Amrawati. This Court accordingly directed the registration of the aforesaid communication as a Criminal Writ Petition and appointed Smt. Pratibha Bharad as a Council to represent the petitioner. 3. On notice being issued to the respondents, Mr. K.G. Patil, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State states on instructions that the application submitted by the petitioner on 18-09-2008 requesting for his transfer from Open Prison, at Paithan to Open Prison, at Morshi, 3 District Amrawati would be considered in accordance with law within period of two months from today. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. 4. We accordingly allow this petition in terms of the statement of learned A.P.P. and further direct the respondents to communicate the decision to the petitioner after the application of the petitioner dated 18-09-2008 is considered and decided in accordance with law. Rule is thus made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. 5. We quantify the fees to be payable to learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs. 3000/- (Rs. Three Thousand only). [ A.V.NIRGUDE, J.] [ P.V. HARDAS, J.] sut/NOV09/crwp867.09