-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRI. APPELLATE JURISDICTION W.P.NO.436 OF 2008 Rajesh Mohanlal Solanki ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.N.N.Gavankar i/b Arfan Sait Advocate for Petitioner Mr.A.S.Gadkari APP for Respondent-State ... CORAM: S.B.MHASE & CORAM: S.B.MHASE & CORAM: S.B.MHASE & SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : MARCH 24, 2008 DATE : MARCH 24, 2008 DATE : MARCH 24, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that he had completed more than two years of imprisonment and as such, he became entitled to be considered for furlough leave. The Judicial Jailor did not allow the Petitioner to apply for furlough leave on the ground that the Jail authorities did not have the set off period undergone by the Petitioner. As set off period had not been set out in the judgment and -2- order of conviction, the Jail authorities were unable to compute the period. 3. The learned APP on instructions states that application of the Petitioner for furlough has been accepted by the Jail authorities and same has been processed. In this view of the matter, we direct that the application of the Petitioner be dealt with expeditiously and disposed of within a period of two weeks from the receipt of this order by the concerned authority. 4. Writ Petition is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.]