Crim.WP 1098/10 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1098/2010 Parvez s/o Zulfikar Kureshi, age 47 yrs., occu.Convict No.6517, r/o Central Prison at Aurangabad. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra. 2] The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3] The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison at Aurangabad. ...Respondents... ..... Mrs.Bharati B. Gunjal, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.S. Patil, APP for respondents. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 07.12.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V. Hardas, J.) : Crim.WP 1098/10 - 2 - 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on 21.8.2010. The petitioner has also prayed for other reliefs i.e. of quashing the order dated 7.8.2010, which is subject matter of challenge in the appeal. 3] In that light of the matter, therefore, we issue Rule making it returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, have heard this petition finally at this stage. 4] The petitioner, it appears, was aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.2010 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, declining to entertain the application of the petitioner seeking his release on parole. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal on 21.8.2010 challenging the said order, which was adverse to the petitioner. It appears that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending. In the light of pendency of the appeal challenging the order dated 7.8.2010, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in this petition relating to the challenge to the said impugned order can not be entertained. We, therefore, dismiss this petition in respect of prayer clauses (C) & (D) to the petition with liberty to the petitioner to seek the same reliefs in the event the order in the appeal Crim.WP 1098/10 - 3 - is adverse to the petitioner. 5] Since the appeal filed by the petitioner is said to be pending and which has been filed in the month of August, 2010, we allow this petition in terms of prayer clause (B) to the petition by directing the respondent no.1 to decide the appeal within four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Rule is, thus, made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V. POTDAR, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.) ndk/cr712102