1 wp2102.10.sxw ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2102 OF 2010 Ramesh Chaitram Shelar. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ....Respondent. Mr. A.G.Toraskar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED:- SEPTEMBER 7, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned APP. Perused the relevant record. Considering the fact that the Petitioner jumped parole leave on the earlier occasion and was eventually arrested on expiry of parole leave period i.e. after 98 days. Therefore, the Petitioner has disentitled himself for grant of furlough leave in terms of Rule 4(10). The argument that the Petitioner has been imposed double punishment, on one hand, deducting remission period and on the other hand, rejecting his application for parole leave, does not commend to us. These are different consequences, which arise out of default committed by the Petitioner on the earlier occasion and both these consequences are provided 2 wp2102.10.sxw by the Rules in place. Hence, this Petition is rejected. 2. Court expresses word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the learned advocate appointed to espouse the cause of the petitioner. 3. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Petitioner, who is in jail. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)