Dismissed

Balkrishna Laxman Mhatre v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Dec 2015WP/3286/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court issued directions directing the Home Department to decide the petitioner's pending application for extension of parole leave within 20 days after the petitioner was granted parole by the Divisional Commissioner but the extension application remained undisposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the Home Department to decide the application for extension of parole leave within 20 days.

Balkrishna Laxman Mhatre Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

cri wp 328615.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3286 OF 2015

¶5

Balkrishna Laxman Mhatre .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

Appearances

¶10

Mrs. Sonia Miskin	Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Smt. V.R. Bhonsale	APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

¶12

DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2015.

¶13

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶16

The petitioner is a convict, undergoing sentence of

¶17

imprisonment in Nashik Road Central Prison, Nasik. The

¶18

petitioner applied for parole leave on 11.3.2014. The said application came to be granted on 28.8.2014. Thereafter,

¶19

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

¶20

cri wp 328615.doc

¶21

the petitioner again preferred application for extension of 30

¶22

days of parole leave. The said application came to be granted. Thereafter, the petitioner again preferred another application for extension of 30 days of parole leave. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 10.6.2015 by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nasik. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before

¶23

the Home Department. As the said application has not been decided, the petitioner is seeking extension of his parole leave.

¶24

4. The affidavit filed by Shri. Kamble, the Superintendent

¶25

of Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik shows that the application for extension of parole leave is under process in

¶26

the Home Department. In view of the fact that the application for extension of parole leave is pending for a long time, directions are issued to the Home Department to decide the application within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of this order.

¶27

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

¶28

cri wp 328615.doc

¶29

In view of above, no further orders are necessary,

¶30

hence, rule is discharged.

¶31

Learned APP to communicate this order to the Home Department.

¶32

Fees be paid to the appointed Advocate as per rules.

¶33

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

¶34

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3

Balkrishna Laxman Mhatre v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balkrishna Laxman Mhatre 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devidas @ Aaba Laxman Savale-Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Suryakant Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amit Deepak Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amit Deepak Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shankar Mallappa Palnor Vs the State of Maharashtra