Cri.W.P.1194/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1194 OF 2010 Tulshidas Laxmanrao Biradar, C.No.3914, Central Prison, Aurangabad ..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad ..Respondents Through jail Mrs R.K.Ladda, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 10th January 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail has been registered as Criminal Writ Petition. The limited grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that by an order passed sometime in 2008, parole came to be granted to the petitioner effective from 20.12.2008 to 19.2.2009. The reason for which the petitioner had applied for parole was on account of the serious Cri.W.P.1194/2010 2 ailment of his brother. During the parole period, since the brother of the petitioner had not recovered, the petitioner applied to the authorities for extension of his parole. The said application came to be rejected by the respondents. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal on 2.3.2009. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner was beyond the period of limitation by 9 days. According to the petitioner the said appeal has not been dec ided though the petitioner had submitted two applications on 18.1.2010 and 26.6.2010 for early decision of the appeal. 3. According to us the appeal ought to have been decided within a reasonable period. The appeal has remained pending for nearly one year and ten months. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition and direct the respondents to decide the appeal. 4. We accordingly allow this petition and direct the respondents to decide the appeal, if pending, within four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/1194.10criwp)