1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 81/2011 Devidas Dashrath Kothe .vs. The D.I.G.Prison (E) ( R), Nagpur and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. H.D.Dubey, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.B.Yangal, APP for Respondent. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ DATE : 30.3.2011 Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is a convict undergoing life imprisonment in open prison at Morshi. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he had preferred an application for furlough on 19.7.2010, the said application has not yet been decided. Hence, he has prayed that appropriate action be taken against the officer responsible for the same and he be released on furlough. 3. On perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioner had preferred an application for furlough. The said application came to be rejected on 29.7.2009. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred 2` W.P.No. 606/2009 before this Court for grant of furlough. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner preferred another application for furlough on 10.9.2009. While the said application was being processed, this court in W.P.No. 606/2009 by order dated 25.2.2010 directed that the petitioner be released on furlough. In the meantime, the application of the petitioner dated 10.9.2009 for furlough also came to be granted by the D.I.G. Prison. It came to be granted by order dated 12.3.2010. Meanwhile, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 25.2.2010, the petitioner after complying with necessary formalities came to be released on furlough on 27.3.2010. He surrendered back on 11.4.2010. As the petitioner was granted furlough by order dated 12.3.2010 in his application dated 10.9.2009, the petitioner again came to be released on furlough on 7.5.2010. After he surrendered back to prison, he preferred the present application dated 19.7.2010 for furlough. The said application was not processed by the authority because Rule 3(2) of The Prison ( Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 provides that a prisoner, sentenced to life imprisonment, may be released on furlough every year instead of every two years after he completes seven years actual imprisonment. Thus, at the most the petitioner can be released every year, if he has completed seven years of actual imprisonment. As in the year 2010 the petitioner was already released twice 3` on furlough i.e. on 27.3.2010 and 7.5.2010 there was no question of again releasing the petitioner on furlough in the year 2010. Hence, the said application was not processed and was filed by the authorities in view of Rule 3(2). We can find no error in the action of the authorities whereby application of the petitioner for furlough dated 19.7.2010 came to be filed. 4. In view of the above facts there is no question of granting the petitioner's application for furlough dated 19.7.2010 and no case is made out for taking any action against any authority. However, as and when the petitioner becomes eligible again to be granted furlough, his application, if preferred, be dealt with expeditiously by the concerned authority. Writ Petition stands disposed in the above terms. JUDGE JUDGE patle 4`