Ranjan Ratiram Raut v. The State of Maharashtra) & Anr.

Shri R.M. Daruwala, learned Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that though he had been transferred to the Open Prison much earlier, actually he came to be transferred to the Open Prison much later. 2 In response to the notice issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply and in para (10) of the affidavit-in- reply, a chart is produced in respect of the date of transfer of the petitioner to the Open Prison, which is 6/12/2006. Thereafter Inspector General of Prisons directed on 2/1/2007 that the petitioner be transferred to the Open Prison. The petitioner immediately submitted an application on 24/2/2007 not to transfer him to the Open Prison in the light of the impending order releasing him on leave. On 26/5/2007, the petitioner had submitted another application with the same request. During August 2007, the petitioner was released on furlough for a period of fifteen days and the petitioner was released on parole during the period from 5/1/2008 to 5/4/2008.

Thereafter again the petitioner was released on furlough. Fresh selection came to be made by the Selection Committee for transfer to Open Prison, but the petitioner did not evince any interest in his transfer to the Open Prison. The petitioner had been released either on parole or furlough subsequent thereto. Ultimately, the list 3 under which the petitioner was selected came to be quashed by the Principal seat of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2015/2010. Though the petitioner was directed to be transferred to the Open Prison earlier, the petitioner was in reality transferred to the Open Prison on 2/9/2010. The respondents in their affidavit in reply have explained the so called delay in actually transferring the petitioner to the Open Prison. Shri Daruwala, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged before us that the explanation given by the respondents for the delay in transfer of the petitioner to the Open Prison is merely an eye wash and the delay has not been explained properly.

We have adverted to the recitals in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents and according to us, the respondents have adequately explained the delay in actually transferring the petitioner to the Open Prison. In any event, since the petitioner has now been transferred, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief muchless under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There being thus no merit in the petition, 4 the same is dismissed summarily with no order as to costs. We quantify the fee payable to Shri Daruwala, learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner, at rupees one thousand five hundred. JUDGE JUDGE