Judgment Naresh H Patil, J. 1) Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for final disposal. 2) The petitioner was released on furlough for a period of two weeks by an order dated 9-9-2011 of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Region, Aurangabad. The petitioner is a prisoner lodged in Central Jail Harsool, Aurangabad. He was accordingly released on 3-10-2011. As his mother was ill he forwarded an application for extension of furlough on 7-10-2011 which was received by the jail authorities on 10-10-2011. The petitioner attended the police station according to the release order passed by the jail authorities. But he did not attend the police station after expiry of initial date of surrender to the jail authorities which was 18-10-2011 with fear that he would be arrested and brought back to the jail authorities. 3) The petitioner did not receive any intimation in respect of his request for extension of furlough. Therefore he himself surrender to the jail authorities on 30-10-2011. 4) According to the jail authorities the petitioner surrendered 14 days late, therefore, the jail authorities issued a show cause notice on 31-10-2011. By a communication dated 16-1-2012 the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons passed order rejecting the request of the petitioner for extension of his furlough on the ground that police report states that he was not in need of extension of furlough on the ground of illness of mother of the petitioner and the petitioner failed to attend the police station. 5) Consequent to the order passed by this Court Mr. Vaibhav Kamble working as Superintendent, Central Prison, Aurangabad filed affidavit-in-reply on 13th March 2012. On behalf of respondent No.5 -the Superintendent of Police Hingoli, Mr. Sitaram Sambhaji Hake, working as Police Inspector, Kurunda Police Station, filed affidavit-in-reply. On behalf of the Superintendent of Police Hingoli the deponent states that the communication received from the jail authorities is dated 10/12 October 2011 for calling report on the application of the petitioner seeking extension of furlough. This communication was received by the office of the Superintendent of Police on 28th December 2011 and after receiving the said letter the Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, forwarded police report by communication dated 2nd January 2012. 6) We have verified the outward register of the Jail authority. This communication was received by the office of the Superintendent of Police on 28th December 2011 and after receiving the said letter the Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, forwarded police report by communication dated 2nd January 2012. 6) We have verified the outward register of the Jail authority. By order dated 15th March 2012 we directed the police authorities to produce the register maintained for the period between October 2011 till 28th December 2011 in respect of objection raised by the counsel for the petitioner regarding the truthfulness in the averments made by the authorities on oath. Today we have perused the inward register produced by the learned APP. We could not notice any entry of 28-12-2011 in respect of receipt of communication from the jail authorities. But we find that a stamp of receipt of said communication by the police authorities is affixed on the said communication which is placed on record. 7) Repeatedly this Court had drawn attention of the jail authorities and the police authorities in respect of effective communication and prompt compliance of forwarding police report consequent to the requests made by the jail authorities. Need for forwarding police reports in time has to be taken seriously by all the concerned police officers as it affects not only right of the prisoners but also the jurisdiction and powers of the jail authorities to pass effective timely orders. In several cases we have noticed that, prisoners have surrendered late than the prescribed date of surrender with explanation that though application for extension was filed but they did not receive any communication. The Divisional Commissioner and the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons of the concerned region shall have to focus their attention on this issue and devise suitable methods to streamline these lapses occurring again and again. 8) Turning to the facts of the present case the petitioner's application for extension had already been rejected. In the light of the facts of this case and after considering the submissions we quash and set aside the order dated 16-1-2012 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Region, Aurangabad and remand the matter back to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Region, Aurangabad, for fresh consideration of the matter in the light of peculiar facts of this case, the reasons put forth by the petitioner about illness of his mother and other attending circumstances brought on record. After passing the order we direct the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Region, Aurangabad to consider the reply filed by the petitioner to the notice dated 31-10-2011 and after hearing the petitioner pass appropriate order on the same. 9) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The Registry to forward copy of this judgment to the Principal Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Home Department. Authenticated copy of the order be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor. 10) The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad, to make payment of professional fees as per rules to the counsel appointed for the petitioner.