W.P.(Crl.). No.1772/09 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(Crl.) No.1772/2009 Date or Order: 19th January 2010 # SACHIN KUMAR ..... Petitioner ! Through: Ms.Purnima Sethi, Adv. versus $ STATE ..... Respondent ^ Through: Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No : V.K. JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the respondent dated 5.10.2009, whereby his request for extension of parole was rejected by the Government. W.P.(Crl.). No.1772/09 Page 2 of 5 2. The petitioner was granted parole for four weeks for the purpose of raising the foundation of his house and to perform other social responsibilities, including making arrangement of funds. He was released from jail on 3rd of August, 2009 and the period of parole expired on 3rd of September, 2009. 3. The petitioner applied for extension of parole on the ground that he wanted to get the eyes of his father to be operated for removal of cataract and also wanted to arrange finances for that purpose. The request of the petitioner for extension of parole for this purpose was rejected by the Government vide order dated 5.10.2009 on the ground that he had already availed one month’s parole and there was no justification for further extension of parole. 4. Cataract of eyes is not a problem which occurs overnight. This is an age related problem and it is only gradual that cataract progresses in the eyes, normally of an old person. When the petitioner was released on parole for one month, he had ample opportunity to get his father operated for removal of cataract from his eyes. He also had an opportunity to arrange the finances for this purpose, though, I find it difficult to appreciate how a man who has been in jail for many years would W.P.(Crl.). No.1772/09 Page 3 of 5 have been in a position to arrange funds for the treatment of his father. Moreover, one of the grounds on which parole was granted to the petitioner by the Government was arranging funds. Therefore, the petitioner could have, if he so wanted, not only arranged funds but also got his father treated for removal of cataract from his eyes when parole was earlier granted to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner could not get his father operated for removal of cataract in September, 2009 when he was out on parole as the BP of his father was found to be high and, therefore, the surgery could not have been performed at that time. She has placed on record a photocopy of the OPD ticket of the father of the petitioner. The document placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not contain any opinion from the doctor that on account of the Blood Pressure, it was not possible to remove the cataract from the eyes of the father of the petitioner. The OPD slip filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is dated 27.8.2009. The Blood Pressure, even if it was high, could have been controlled by giving suitable medication and surgery for removal of cataract could thereafter have been performed. The Blood Pressure as recorded in the OPD slip was 150/110 which cannot be said to be so high in the age of the W.P.(Crl.). No.1772/09 Page 4 of 5 father of the petitioner as could have prevented removal of cataract from the eyes of the father of the petitioner. In any case, there is no medical opinion on record to this effect. 5. The grant of parole being an executive function, it is for the Government to consider the request made by a convict for grant of parole and take appropriate decision on it. The court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the order passed by the Government only if it is shown that it was based upon irrelevant considerations or is otherwise unsustainable in law. Unless, it is shown, the court would not be justified in interfering with the order passed by the Government. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I have not been able to find any fault with the view taken by the Government on the request made by the petitioner. Not only had he time and opportunity to arrange funds, he also could easily have got the surgery performed for removal of cataract from the eyes of his father. In any case, removal of cataract from the eyes of an old man these days is not considered to be a major surgery and one does not really need to come out of the jail to be with a person who is to be operated upon for removal of cataract from his eyes. W.P.(Crl.). No.1772/09 Page 5 of 5 6. I find no reasonable ground to interfere with the order passed by the Government. The petition is dismissed. V.K. JAIN (JUDGE) JANUARY 19, 2010 RS/