drp {1} Cri.W.P.No.613/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.613 OF 2010 Bhima Rangnath Adagale PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs.Sharda P.Chate, Advocate for petitioner Mr. N.H.Borade, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 17th February 2011 PER COURT: 1. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondents transferring the petitioner from open jail to the Central Prison at Aurangabad. 2. It appears that the petitioner, who had been released on furlough for a period of 15 days, overstayed his furlough leave by 126 days and was required to be arrested and produced before the authorities. Show cause notice came to be issued to the drp {2} Cri.W.P.No.613/2010 petitioner contending as to why his transfer to the open jail should not be cancelled and why he should not be re-transferred back to the Central Prison. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice contending that on account of the advanced age of his mother and the ailments with which she was suffering and also the fact that the petitioner had been admitted in Sasoon Hospital with burns, the petitioner was late in surrendering. The reply of the petitioner was not favourably considered by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner came to be transferred to Central Jail. 3. In the present case the petitioner had been issued with a show cause notice and had been given opportunity of submitting of his reply to the show cause notice. Undisputedly, the petitioner was late by 126 days in surrendering to his furlough leave. The case of the petitioner, therefore, would stand squarely covered by the Rules. The petitioner had even enclosed the injury certificate issued by Sasoon Hospital. Since the petitioner had committed breach of the Prison Rules, the petitioner was transferred back to Central Jail at Aurangabad. 4. While exercising the writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not and cannot sit as an appellate court scrutinizing orders passed by the respondents. It is sufficient to state that the respondents had provided all the opportunity to the petitioner of defending the drp {3} Cri.W.P.No.613/2010 charge against him. In that light of the matter, therefore, we find no grounds for quashing and setting aside the impugned order. This petition is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/A11/cwp613-10