Here, in the present case, though it appears that petitioner was transferred to the close prison on 03.12.2024, the matter was put before the Selection Committee and the Committee has taken decision on 10.01.2025. The information that was put before the Selection Committee has also been placed before this Court and as aforesaid, the petitioner is stated to be found ineligible in view of Rule 4 (II) (d) & (n) of the Maharashtra Open Prisons Rules, 1971. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that Selection Committee has not heard him. Perusal of Ravi @ Ravindra Umaji Gunjkar (supra) would show that it is not stated that Selection Committee should hear the inmate. In both the matters i.e. in Ravi @ Ravindra Umaji Gunjkar (supra) and Dhananjay Namdeo Kharade (supra) the matter was not put before the Selection Committee at all. It is not the case and the procedure does not show that when the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee for being transferred to open prison at that time he was heard. Now, on the basis of information supplied and the show cause notice that was given along with its reply was placed before the Selection Committee and on the basis of same the Selection Committee appears to have taken the decision. There is sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice and, therefore, we found that no case is made out for exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
{Para 8}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.134 OF 2025
Ankur Narayan Panwar Vs The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.
PRONOUNCED ON : 11th JUNE, 2025
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:14574-DB
ORDER : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )
Print Page