27-CRPIL35.10 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.35 OF 2010 M.K. Balakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents None for the petitioner. Mr. P.A. Pol, Public Prosecutor for the State. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI, & RANJIT MORE, JJ. DATED : 27TH JULY, 2011. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner's grievance is that life convicts are languishing in jails even after 14 years' incarceration including remissions. Affidavit in reply has been filed by Mr. Sadanand Gavit, Joint Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. It appears from the affidavit that as directed by this court, necessary information has been collected from Inspector 27-CRPIL35.10 : 2 : General of Prisons, Pune. It is stated by Mr. Gavit in his affidavit that the averment made by the petitioner that more than 600 prisoners are languishing in different prisons in the State though they have completed actual imprisonment of 14 years, is incorrect. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant paragraph of Mr. Gavit's affidavit. “4. I say that the above said averment is incorrect. I say that the State of Maharashtra has collected hte information from the Inspector General of Prisons, Pune, in this regard, which discloses that total 151 prisoners have completed the actual imprisonment of 14 years, whose proposal of premature release have not yet been decided. Out of the 151 proposals, the State of Maharashtra has received the proposals of premature release of 143 prisoners, which are under consideration of the Government and 8 proposals are pending with the Inspector General of Prisons Office and they are under process to submit to the Government.” 2. Thus, in our opinion, the petition contains incorrect facts. We find from the various orders passed by this 27-CRPIL35.10 : 3 : court that the petitioner has never remained present in the court. It appears that he is no longer interested in prosecuting the petition. In any case, there is no substance in the petition. 3. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]