Mahadev Nagnath Rajpanke v. Deputy Inspector General Prisons

2025:BHC-NAG:10473-DB 1 cr. wp 781.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 781 OF 2025 [Mahadev Nagnath Rajpanke vs. Deputy Inspector General of Prison (East Region) Nagpur and anr.] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------ - - - Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. N. R. Tripathi, APP for the State/respondents CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATED : 08-10-2025.

Heard.

2.

The petitioner approached this Court with innocuous prayer to direct respondents to decide application dated 10-9-2024 filed by the petitioner seeking parole leave within stipulated time.

3.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the application has been considered and rejected on 26-9-2025.

4.

This has been done only because on 24-9-2025, we have directed respondents to go through Rule 23 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024, which provides time of 45 days to decide such application. Thus, there are statutory rules to decide application within stipulated time.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is not the first time when the respondents have acted negligently. She further submits, and rightly so, that every prisoner cannot approach this Court and, therefore, appropriate directions should be given to the respondents.

2 cr. wp 781.2025 6.

We do not find it necessary to give direction to the respondents in as much as there are statutory rules prescribing time limit to decide the application. The respondents are bound by these rules.

7.

In the circumstances, we would refer this matter to the appointing authority of respondent no. 2 for taking appropriate action in terms of service rules as also the provisions of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005, particularly, Section 10 thereof. We also expect Inspector General of Prison, Pune to issue appropriate directions in this regard so that prisoners will not have to approach this Court with a prayer to decide the applications seeking parole or furlough leave or similar such applications for taking decision within stipulated time.

8.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.

9.

Copy of the order shall be served upon Inspector General of Prison, Pune for compliance. The report shall be submitted by 10-11-2025.

(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (A. L. PANSARE, J.) wasnik