- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.458/2009 Shri Pradeep Banate. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ...Respondent... ..... Shri N.G. Kale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Kadam, APP for respondent. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & R.K. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE: 06.07.2009 PER COURT: A letter sent by the petitioner through jail taking exception to the orders of the respondent in not referring the petitioner to serve sentence in the Open Jail at Paithan, is the subject mater of this petition. On receipt of the said letter from the petitioner, the same came to be registered as a - 2 - Criminal Writ Petition and we had accordingly appointed Shri N.G. Kale as a counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. It appears that the petitioner, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment, had submitted an application before the respondent for referring him to Open Jail at Paithan. Since the respondent declined to grant the relief as requested for by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present petition. On notice being issued to the respondent, the respondent through its Jailor, Grade-I, Aurangabad, has filed the affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, it is stated that by virtue of Rule 4 (ii) of the Maharashtra Open Prisons Rules, 1971, the petitioner is ineligible to be considered for being sent to the Open Prison at Paithan. Clause 4(ii) of the said Rules reads as under: “4 (ii) The following prisoners shall not normally be sent for confinement in an open prison : (a) habituals classified as such by courts; (b) known habituals; (c) prisoners who are awarded three or more major punishments for prison offences during the last two years, prior to the date of selection, (d) to (n) .......... ......... ..........” By virtue of Clause (c) of Rule 4(ii), since the petitioner was awarded three or more major punishments for prison offences prior to two years before - 3 - the date of consideration of his case for being referred to Open Prison, the petitioner has rendered himself ineligible for being referred to the Open Prison. In the affidavit in reply, the aforesaid instances are given of four major punishments bing imposed on the petitioner. The affidavit in reply further discloses that in all, the cases of 17 prisoners, including the petitioner, were kept before the committee on 6.5.2007, the committee did not favourably consider the case of the petitioner for the aforesaid reasons. In the light of the provisions of the Rule and the fact that the petitioner has been awarded four major punishments for prison offences during the last two years prior to the date of consideration of his case for being transferred to Open Prison, we do not see any merit in the petition and the same is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no costs. We, however, quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner at Rs. 1500/- (rupees one thousand five hundred only). (R.K. Deshpande,J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c67092