1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 903 OF 2009 District Legal Services Authority, Aurangabad, District Court, Aurangabad, throgh its Secretary ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ...Respondents ..... Shri S.P.Brahme, advocate appointed for the petitioner Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, APP for the respondent ..... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 11.02.2010 ORAL ORDER 1 The District Legal Services Authority through the Principal District Judge, Aurangabad had submitted a report and on the basis of said report, present petition has been filed. This Court had accordingly appointed advocate Shri S.P.Brahme as a counsel to represent the petitioner in the 2 said petition, by order dated 6th October, 2009. Pursuant to the directions of this court, the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner, after obtaining necessary instructions from the petitioner, has filed the present petition. 2 The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises several issues, which are :- 1) The Government has not framed Rules for consideration of the proposals for grant of remission of the convicts. 2) Proposals for remission are pending inordinately long at the Government level. 3) No security measures for preventing the escape of the inmates of the open jail at Paithan have been taken. 4) One prisoner has been denied remission without considering the certificate of age tendered by him. 3 The respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, at paragraph 3 it is stated that the Government has framed the Maharashtra (Remission System) Rules, 1962, which elaborates the policy and the process of grant of remission. It is further stated that these Rules have been incorporated under the Maharashtra Prison Manual at Chapter XXXVIII. The benefit of remissions have been granted 3 to the prisoners in accordance with law. It is also stated that the Government has framed Maharashtra Prisons (Review of Sentences) Rules, 1972, elaborating the policy and the process of reviewing the sentences to convict including cases of premature release of convicts. It is stated that these Rules have also been incorporated in the Maharashtra Prison Manual at Part II Section 1. In respect of second point about the pendency of the proposals of the convicts from paragraph 4 to paragraph 8 of the affidavit in reply,the names of the convicts have been given including the proposed release of the said convicts. This grievance of the petitioner, therefore, stands attended to. In respect of the third submission that no security measures have been taken to prevent the inmates of the open prison from escaping, at paragraph 9 of the affidavit in reply, the security measures which have been taken are highlighted. In respect of fourth point about a prisoner being denied remission without considering the age certificate, it is stated that the said prisoner namely Kishan Bhikaji Jagdale had filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1072 of 2009 in this court and the afore said writ petition came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 7.1.2010 directing the Government to take decision within eight weeks. The affidavit in reply, therefore, states that none of the grievance raised by 4 the petitioner in this petition survive for consideration as those grievances have been attended to. 4 In the light of the afore said reply, which we have adverted to above, according to us, nothing further survives for consideration in this petition and this petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. We, however, quantify the fees payable to Shri S.P.Brahme, learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs. 3,000/-. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) dbm/crwp903.09