JUDGMENT : S.S. SHINDE, J. 1. The present Writ Petition was heard on 9th December, 2016 and following order was passed: “1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking directions to the respondents to release the petitioner on the ground that he has undergone the actual imprisonment for more than 18 years. 2. Pursuant to the notices issued to the respondents, reply is filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by one Shri Rajkumar S/o Keshavrao Sali, presently working as Superintendent, Open District Prison, Paithan, District Aurangabad. Para 7 of the said affidavit reads thus: "7. I say that, accordingly, the Superintendent of Open Prison, Paithan, vide letters dated 17.10.2012, 28.04.2014, 12.07.2014, 09.12.2015, 07.04.2016, 10.11.2016, sought opinion from the City Sessions Judge, Mumbai in respect of premature release of the petitioner, the respondents are consistently taking follow up of the matter. The copies of the letters dated 17.10.2012, 28.04.2014, 12.07.2014, 09.12.2015, 07.04.2016, 10.11.2016, are annexed herewith and marked as “Exhibit R2” collectively." 3. We are surprised to note that though the opinion from the City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Mumbai in respect of premature release of the applicant is sought in the year 2012, the concerned Judge has not yet given the opinion. 4. In the circumstances, we direct the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, at Mumbai to submit report, as to why opinion, as sought, has not been given till date by the concerned Judge, when the said case of the petitioner is referred for opinion in the year 2013. 5. Learned Registrar (Judicial) shall ensure that such report is received from the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court at Mumbai, on or before 22nd December, 2016. 6. List on 4th January, 2017.” 2. Pursuant to the order dated 9th December, 2016, the Registrar (Judicial) has received report from the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court at Mumbai. Along with the said report, the letter written by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai to the Superintendent, Open District Prison, Paithan, District Aurangabad is also annexed. It appears that, by the said letter the Additional Sessions Judge has communicated his remarks. 3. It appears from the reply filed by respondent nos. Along with the said report, the letter written by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai to the Superintendent, Open District Prison, Paithan, District Aurangabad is also annexed. It appears that, by the said letter the Additional Sessions Judge has communicated his remarks. 3. It appears from the reply filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 that, the Superintendent, Open Prison, Paithan from 17.10.2012 to 10.11.2016 had written as many as 6 letters, seeking opinion of the Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai. However, it is mentioned in the letter written by the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai to the Registrar that, only 2 letters i.e. letters dated 12.07.2014 and 10.11.2016 were received by the office of Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai. 4. Be that as it may, we do not wish to enter into the discussion about how many letters were written by the Superintendent, Open Prison, Paithan to the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai and as a matter of fact how many of them were received by the office of the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai. Suffice it to say that, the Circular issued by the Department of Home (Prison), Government of Maharashtra, bearing Circular No. R.L.P.1099/10/263/P.R.S.-3A, dated 2nd August, 2004, provides for procedure and time limit to complete the proposal for premature release of the convict. The following instructions are issued in the said Circular: xxx xxx xxx 5. After going through the aforestated instructions, it reveals that, the Superintendent of Jail has to initiate the requisite process for proposal of premature release of the convict and submit the same to the higher authorities within stipulated period. Till the entire process is complete, the total period required as stated in clause 14 is 12 months to 15 months. 6. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangeet and Another vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 , was pleased to issue direction to obtain opinion with reason of the Presiding Judge of the convicting or confirming Court prior to exercising the powers of remission under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the appropriate Government. Relevant directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangeet & Another vs. State of Haryana (cited supra) in para 77.7 are as under: 77.7. Relevant directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangeet & Another vs. State of Haryana (cited supra) in para 77.7 are as under: 77.7. Before actually exercising the power of remission under Section 432 CrPC the appropriate Government must obtain the opinion (with reasons) of the Presiding Judge of the convicting or confirming Court. Remissions can, therefore, be given only on a case-by-case basis and not in a wholesale manner. 7. In that view of the matter, in case opinion with reasons as contemplated in the aforesaid case referred supra are not given by the concerned Sessions Judge at the earliest, in that case the entire process is likely to be delayed for considerable period, as it is happened in the present case. 8. In such peculiar circumstances, as mentioned above, it is expected from the concerned learned Sessions Judges that, as and when the letter seeking opinion of the concerned Judge is received from the Jail Authority, opinion should be given expeditiously so as to avoid further delay. 9. It is informed by the learned APP that, already the petitioner is released from the Jail. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 10. The learned Registrar (Judicial) to circulate this order to all the Principal District and Sessions Judges, and other Judges of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai and also to all the Sessions Judge, working throughout the State of Maharashtra within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.