Dismissed

Somnath Mangal Pawshe and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Apr 2018WP/822/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged eligibility criteria for furlough in Maharashtra Prisons Rules. Court noted a new notification superseded the impugned rules, deleting the disputed criterion, rendering the petition infructuous. It was disposed of along with consequential costs if any.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as infructuous following supersession of the impugned rules.

Somnath Mangal Pawshe and Anr. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

4. cri wp 82217.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 822 OF 2017

¶5

Somnath Mangal Pawshe & Anr.

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Mr. Santosh S. Musale	Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait	APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &

¶13

M.S. SONAK, J.

¶14

DATE : APRIL 19, 2018.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1. Heard both sides.

¶17

2. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged sub-

¶18

Rule 11 of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2016. Rule 4 sets

¶19

out when a petitioner shall not be eligible to be granted

¶20

furlough. Sub-Rule 11 of Rule 4 which was added by Notification dated 26.8.2016 states that a prisoner whose

¶21

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 2

¶22

4. cri wp 82217.doc

¶23

appeal is pending before the higher forum shall not be eligible to be released on furlough. However, it is seen that

¶24

the Government has issued a new notification dated 16.4.2018 in relation to Rule 4. Clause 20 of the said Notification reads thus:-

¶25

"20. Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2012 as notified vide Notification No. RJM-2003/C.R. 32/PRS-2, dated 23.2.2012, Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2015 notified vide Notification No. JLM-1013/C.R.115/13/PRS-2, dated 1.12.2015 and Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2016 notified vide Notification No. MIS1316/C.R.669/16/PRS-3 , dated 26.8.2016 are hereby superseded."

¶26

3. As per new notification, the criteria that the prisoner

¶27

whose appeal is pending before the higher forum shall not be eligible for furlough, has been deleted from the Rules. In this view of the matter, this petition has become infructuous and

¶28

is disposed of as such.

¶29

[ M.S. SONAK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]

¶30

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 2

Somnath Mangal Pawshe and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somnath Mangal Pawshe and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amol Ambadas Bankar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhairyasheel Sampat Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Anant Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath Mangal Pawshe and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chandrakant Vishna Shewale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Suresh Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra