RAVASAHEB DAMU GHULE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Submissions were heard on the earlier date. In Writ Petition No.5689 of 2018, the petitioner made an application for grant of furlough under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (for short "the said Rules of 1959"). By the order dated 6th July 2018, the application for grant of furlough was rejected not on merits but on the ground that though the Competent Authority had offered to allow the petitioner to avail of furlough outside Nashik District, the petitioner declined to accept the said offer. In Writ Petition No.342 of 2019, the challenge is to a similar order dated 23rd July 2018 passed by another Competent Authority wherein it is mentioned that though the petitioner was offered furlough leave on the condition of staying outside District Palghar, he has declined to accept the said offer.

(2.) The submission of the learned APP was that in view of Rule 17 of the said Rules of 1959, no legal right is conferred on a prisoner to claim release on furlough. Moreover, the said Rules of 1959 do not prohibit the imposition of such a condition.

(3.) We have considered the submissions. It is true that Rule 17 of the said Rules of 1959 lays down that nothing in the said Rules of 1959 shall be considered as conferring a legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough. However, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sharad Keshav Mehta v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,1988 SCCOnLine(Bom) 410 held that Rule 17 cannot operate to deprive a right to the prisoner to be released on furlough provided the requirements of the said Rules of 1959 are satisfied. Paragraph 3 of the said decision reads thus :-