drp {1} Cri.W.P.No.1196/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1196 OF 2010 Dilip Prabhu Khinde PETITIONER Age-43 years, Occ-Nil Convict No.4313, Open Jail, Paithan Prison, Dist-Aurangabad VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Special Inspector General (Prison) Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 3. The Superintendent of Prison Open Jail Paithan Prison Dis-Aurangabad ....... Mr.Ajit Zarekar, Advocate for petitioner (appointed) Mr.N.H.Borade, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 1st February 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.): drp {2} Cri.W.P.No.1196/2010 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally, at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner, by this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order issued by the respondents rejecting the application of the petitioner for his release on Furlough. The impugned order is dated 30.11.2010. The petitioner had sent a communication though jail, which was registered as Criminal Writ Petition and accordingly we had appointed Advocate Mr.Ajit Zarekar to represent the petitioner in this petition. 3. The application of the petitioner has been rejected principally on the ground that on earlier occasions when the petitioner had been released, the petitioner had reported late by 34 days, 4 days, 2 days and 13 days. According to the authorities, the petitioner became dis-entitled to be released on Furlough in the light of the provisions of Rule 4 (10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rule 1959. 4. According to us, it would be appropriate if the petitioner submits an application afresh seeking his release on furlough. We, therefore, grant leave to the petitioner to apply afresh to the authorities for his release on Furlough. We, further direct drp {3} Cri.W.P.No.1196/2010 that the authorities, in the event the petitioner submits an application, shall decide the same in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the earlier rejection of his application. In any event the authorities shall decide the said application as expeditiously as possible and in no case later than 3 months from the date of its presentation. 5. Since we do not find any merit in the present petition, we dismiss this petition granting leave to the petitioner to apply afresh and directing respondents to decide the application on its own merits. 6. Rule stands discharged. In the circumstances, we quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1500/-. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/A11/cwp1196-10