Disposed

Atul Suryakant Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Dec 2015WP/2556/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a prisoner, challenged the non-conversion of his 2013 furlough application appeal to furlough order status. Relying on the Maharashtra Prison Manual, the court ruled that the period under dispute lapsed and directed the petitioner to file a fresh application, mandating specific time limits for its disposal by the Chief Prison Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to prefer a fresh furlough application; disposal of fresh application and appeal to be decided within specified timelines.

Atul Suryakant Kamble Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

4 WP 2556 OF 2014.doc

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2556 OF 2014.

¶4

Atul Suryakant Kamble … Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and ors …. Respondents

¶5

Mr. Pravin G. Sawant, for the petitioner. Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI ACTING CJ & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

¶7

DATE : 15th DECEMBER, 2015.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Heard both sides.

¶10

Rule.

¶11

By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶12

The petitioner had preferred an application for furlough on

¶13

29.10.2013. The said application came to be rejected. Being ggrieved,

¶14

the petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 16.1.2014, hence this petition.

¶15

It is seen that the petitioner had preferred an application for

¶16

furlough in the year 2013. Note (3) of Rule 2 in Chapter XXXVII of the

¶17

Maharashtra Prison Manual 1979 which deals with furlough and parole

¶18

¶19

4 WP 2556 OF 2014.doc

¶20

states that, "If at any time, a prisoner who could have been granted furlough is either not granted or is refused the same the period for which

¶21

he could have been granted the furlough, shall not be carried forward but shall lapse".

¶22

In view of this Rule, it is clear that the period of furlough which was being sought in the year 2013 cannot be carried forward to this year. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate that the petitioner prefers a fresh application for furlough. In case, the petitioner prefers a fresh application for furlough, the D.I.G. (Prisons) who is the concerned authority, shall decide the same within a period of 45 days from the date of such application. In case, the application is rejected and an appeal is preferred by the petitioner within one month of receipt of order, the same shall be decided within a period of two months from the date of such appeal.

¶23

Rule is discharged. Petition is disposed of accordingly in the

¶24

above terms.

¶25

Fees be paid to the appointed advocate as per rules.

¶26

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.]

¶27

¶28

4 WP 2556 OF 2014.doc

¶29

C E R T I F I C A T E

¶30

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order.

¶31

Atul Suryakant Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Suryakant Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kisan Pandurang Gawali Vs the Addl. Director Genral and Inspector Genral

Shahnawaj Abdul Kadar Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohd. Yasin Chhutan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Udal Harishchandra Nanak Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Narayan Shirke and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra