Disposed

Bandu @ Raghoji Piraji Soudagar (C-5259) v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC25 Nov 2022WP/1653/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a criminal writ petition filed by a convict challenging delay in deciding his furlough leave application. After obtaining an undertaking from the respondent authority, the court directed them to decide the application within three weeks and dismissed the writ.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's furlough leave application must be decided by Respondent No. 1 within three weeks from receipt of the authenticated copy of this order.

Bandu @ Raghoji Piraji Soudagar (C-5259) Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

917 sr.no..odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1653 OF 2022

¶5

BANDU @ RAGHOJI PIRAJI SOUDAGAR (C-5259) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Rupesh Anil Jaiswal APP for Respondents : Mr. A.M. Phule

¶7

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.

¶8

DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2022.

¶9

P.C.:-

¶10

The petitioner who is a convict is required to approach this court by invoking the constitutional powers as his application for furlough leave has not been decided within the stipulated period by the respondent No.1.

¶11

The petitioner has come with the following prayer :-

¶12

“[A] To direct the Respondent No. 1 to decide the Application dated 29.9.2022 for Furlough Leave preferred by petitioner within time frame.”

¶13

Taking into consideration the limited prayer that has been made, the learned APP was directed to take oral instructions. Upon oral instructions, learned APP submits that

¶14

{2}

¶15

917 sr.no..odt

¶16

the application presented by the petitioner would be decided by the respondent No.1 within a period of three weeks. This statement has been taken as an undertaking on behalf of the respondent No.1.

¶17

Learned advocate for the petitioner has once again made a grievance that the respondent No.1 is not deciding the application in view of the Government Circular dated 1.8.2007. He is harping upon the point that such applications are not being decided by the concerned authority within the stipulated period and, therefore, the convicts are required to approach this Court. He also submits that in some cases, even after approaching this Court and statement is made that they would decide the application within a particular period, yet, they are not decided and, therefore, Contempt Petitions are required to be filed. Unnecessarily, it is causing burden on this Court.

¶18

Definitely, when a right is created in favour of a person by way of a Government Resolution or Circular, or in other words, when the Government undertakes to itself or its authorities that a particular act would be done within stipulated period, then, the authorities on whom such duty has been cast, should discharge the said duty within that stipulated period.

¶19

Learned APP submits that there are practical difficulties now in view of the fact that after Covid pandemic situation is over, many applications have been filed. This Court need not enter into practical solution. That solution is with the

¶20

{3}

¶21

917 sr.no..odt

¶22

respondent No.1 itself and, therefore, when it is expected from respondent No.1 that such applications should be decided by that authority within a stipulated period; it should be so done.

¶23

We hope and trust that henceforth, the respondent No.1 would find out practical solution for his problem and would adhere to the requirement of the Government Circular.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid undertaking of the learned APP, the writ petition can be disposed of by giving directions that the application filed by the petitioner on 29.9.2022 for furlough leave be decided by the respondent No.1 within a period of three weeks from the receipt of authenticated copy of this order by the respondent No.1. Learned APP to transmit the authenticated copy of this order to the respondent No.1.

¶25

With these directions writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

[RAJESH S. PATIL] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

grt/-

Bandu @ Raghoji Piraji Soudagar (C-5259) v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandu @ Raghoji Piraji Soudagar (C-5259) v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Laxmi W/O. Mohan Chavan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Mazhar S/O Shaikh Haidar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anusaya D/O. Santosh Bharti and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ganesh Dhondiram Garudkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gorakshnath Rangnath Vahile and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sagar Vijay Rajale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another