AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vipul M. Pancholi, J
This application is filed with the following prayers:
“8(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this application;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 01.10.2019 and 07.12.2019 passed by respondent no.2 in the interest of
justice;
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct respondent no.3 to reconsider the case of applicant for granting furlough in the interest of justice;
(d) Your Lordships may be pleased to dispense with affidavit as the applicant is in judicial custody;
(e) xxxxâ€
Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-state. It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that
proposal for grant of furlough leave to the petitioner was rejected by the respondent authority. Against the said order, the petitioner filed application for
review before the respondent authority on the ground that when the petitioner surrendered late by eight days, the competent authority has regularized
the same by passing order dated 9.8.2019. Thus, when the competent authority has regularized the late surrender of the applicant, the respondent
authority ought to have considered the case of the applicant for grant of furlough leave. It is, therefore, urged that the matter be remitted back to the
respondent authority for deciding the issue afresh keeping in view the order dated 9.8.2019 passed by the concerned authority.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that this Court may pass appropriate order considering the material placed on record.
In view of the aforesaid submission and the material placed on record, this application is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent
authority for deciding the application for furlough leave of the applicant afresh. While deciding the said request, the respondent authority shall keep in
mind the order dated 9.8.2019 passed by the competent authority. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.