drp {1} Cri.W.P.No.367/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.367 OF 2011 Dhananjay Dagadu Ubale PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs.S.G.Chincholkar, Advocate for petitioner (Appointed) Mr. V.D.Godbharle, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 14 th June 2011 PER COURT: 1. This is a petition by which the petitioner, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment in jail, challenges the order dated 21.01.2009 issued by the respondents, rejecting his application for extension of his leave on the ground of ailment of his mother. The application came to be rejected principally on the ground that a police report had not been received by the respondents, by the time when the respondents were called upon to decide the application seeking extension. In any event, the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an appeal. Though there is delay in challenge to the aforesaid impugned order, drp {2} Cri.W.P.No.367/2011 according to us, the delay would not be a factor which would be fatal to the case of the petitioner, as the impugned order visits the petitioner with penalty of deduction of remission of 12 days. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us, it would be appropriate if the petitioner files an appeal before the respondent Government challenging the impugned order. Resultantly, though we dismiss the petition by relegating the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy, yet we direct the respondents to decide the appeal on merits, by condoning the delay, as expeditiously as possible and to communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 2. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid directions. We quantify the fees payable to learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B11/cwp367-11