Partly allowed

Naresh S/O. Chandraprakash Dixit (C-6195) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2018WP/301/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition seeking restoration of petitioner's name in the remission register. High Court set aside impugned order rejecting petition due to furlough overstaying; directed respondent to reconsider prayer within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; respondent directed to reconsider petitioner's prayer within six weeks.

Naresh S/O. Chandraprakash Dixit (C-6195) Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

crwp301.18

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

904 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 301 OF 2018

¶5

Naresh s/o Chandraprakash Dixit (C-6195) Central Jail Harsul, Aurangabad ...Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Deputy Inspector General Prison Central Region, Aurangabad 2. The State of Maharashtra Through Superintendent of Jail Aurangabad ...Respondents

¶6

..... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Mr. Jaiswal Rupesh A APP for Respondents: Mr. K.S. Patil

¶7

..... CORAM : S. S. SHINDE AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ. DATED : 11^th JULY, 2018

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.) :-

¶9

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally at admission stage.

¶10

We have considered the submissions made across the bar by the learned counsel for the respective parties. There are twofold reasons assigned in the impugned order while rejecting the prayer of

¶11

crwp301.18 -2-

¶12

the petitioner to re-enter his name in the remission register. Firstly, when the petitioner was released on furlough leave in the year 2009, he overstayed for more than 267 days and even on second occasion when he was released on furlough in the year 2013, he overstayed for a period of 6 days. Except these two principal reasons, there is no any other substantial reason to reject the prayer of the petitioner to enter his name once again in the remission register. It appears that the petitioner was released on 8.3.2013 and he reported back late by 6 days. Thereafter, more than five years period is lapsed.

¶13

In view of the above, in our opinion, the reasons assigned in the impugned order are not sound and sustainable. In that view of the matter, we quash and set aside the impugned order and direct respondent No.1 to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner to enter his name in the remission register keeping in view the fact that more than five years time has been lapsed after his last release on furlough.

¶14

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter and it is for the concerned authority to take decision afresh. Such decision be taken as expeditiously as possible, however, within six weeks from today.

¶15

crwp301.18

¶16

-3-

¶17

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Petition is partly allowed and disposed of.

¶18

Registry to issue authenticated copy of this order to the requesting party.

¶19

( V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( S. S. SHINDE, J. )

¶20

rlj/

Naresh S/O. Chandraprakash Dixit (C-6195) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh S/O. Chandraprakash Dixit (C-6195) v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Shivraj S/O. Bhagwan Patil Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad and Others

Shaikh Chand S/O. Shaikh Ismail Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Divisions, Aurangabad and Others

Ramdas @ Anna Chimaji Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhananjay S/O. Namdeo Kharade (C-17713) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dattu Baburao Pawar (C-9529) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrakant S/O. Khandu Badgujar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.