1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 465 OF 2010 Dnynoba s/o Sakharam Vikhe, Age 54 years, Occu.Nil, C.No.6761, Central Prison, Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prison), Aurangabad 3. The Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Harsul, Aurangabad 4. The Inspector General of Police, Pune ..RESPONDENTS Mr R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner; Mr K.B. Chaudhari, A.P.P. for the respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 15th September, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) 2 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 came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and accordingly we had appointed Shri R.M. Deshmukh, learned Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the respondent - authorities in not considering the petitioner for being transferred to the Open Jail at Paithan and for removing his name from the Remission Register. The petitioner also questions that the remission which is deducted is not in accordance with the Rules. 4. It appears that the petitioner came to be convicted by the Sessions Judge, Parbhani by judgment dated 30.3.1992 for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Since then the petitioner is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life. The petitioner who had been released on parole on an earlier occasion had absconded for a period of 1552 days and was required to be arrested and produced before the jail authorities. As per the Rules, the name of the petitioner came to be removed permanently from the Remission 3 Register and consequently the petitioner is not being considered as eligible to be transferred to the Open Jail at Paithan. 5. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and the perusal thereof reveals that the action taken by the respondents is certainly justified. The petitioner had absconded for more than 1500 days and was required to be arrested and produced before the Court. The remission has been properly deducted in accordance with Rules. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us there is no ground for interference in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged. We, however, quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/-. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp465.10