1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.94 OF 2008. Santosh Dnyandeo Tidke, Convict C-3448, Central Prison, Amravati ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. 2. Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS .... Mr. K.S. Narwade, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.J. Jichkar, A.P.P. for the respondents. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ . DATED : 25/03/2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A. P. Lavande, J.) 1] Heard Mr. Narwade, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jichkar, learned A. P. P. for the respondents. 2 2] Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the parties. 3] Mr. Jichkar, learned A. P.P. waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 4] By this petition, the petitioner who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life at Central Jail, Amravati for having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code challenges the order dated 2/1/2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati- Competent Authority under The Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The impugned order passed by the Competent Authority (as translated) reads thus:- “Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Akola have given favourable reports. However, the prisoner has completed only one year in the jail. Hence leave rejected”. 5] The applications filed by the prisoners for grant of furlough or parole are to be dealt with in terms of The Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole)Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) which have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 59 of the Prisons Act. Rule 19 of the Rules permits the Competent Authority to release the 3 prisoner on parole in certain contingencies. Rule 19 of the Rules has been amended by the State of Maharashtra by a Notification dated 7th February 2007. Rule 19 of the Rules (as amended) reads thus :- “When a prisoner may be released on parole – A prisoner will be released on parole for such period as the Competent Authority referred to in rule 18 in its discretion may order, in case of serious illness, or death of any member of the prisoner's family or of his nearest relative, or pregnant woman prisoner for delivery (except high security risk prisoner), or for any other sufficient cause.” Rule 19 of the Rules prior to this amendment read thus:- “When a prisoner may be released on parole – A prisoner may be released on parole for such period not exceeding thirty days at a time, as the Competent Authority referred to in rule 18, in its discretion may order, in cases of serious illness, or death of nearest relative such as mother, father, sister, brother, children, spouse of the prisoner, or in case of natural calamity such as house collapse, floods, fire, 4 No such parole or extension of parole shall be granted without obtaining a police report in all cases except in the case of death of his nearest relatives mentioned above: Provided that a prisoner shall not be released on parole for one year after expiry of his last parole except in case of death of his nearest relatives mentioned above”. 6] Perusal of the impugned order discloses that the Competent Authority has rejected parole leave to the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner has just completed one year in jail. The Competent Authority dealing with an application for furlough or parole sought by the petitioner is expected to deal with the same in terms of the rules framed. We fail to understand as to how the Competent Authority could have rejected parole leave to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had completed just one year in the jail. In fact a prisoner was entitled to parole upon completion of one year in jail in terms of the proviso to the unamended Rule 19 of the Rules and under the amended Rule 19 of the Rules even the said requirement of completion of one year in jail has been dispensed with. The Competent Authority 5 dealing with an application for furlough or parole is expected be alive to the fact that he is dealing with an application filed by a person who is confined in jail. It is, therefore, expected of the Competent Authority to keep himself abreast of relevant provisions dealing with grant or refusal of furlough or parole. We have come across several cases in which the Competent Authorities and more particularly, Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati have passed orders in clear breach of the Rules and time and again we have set aside the said orders refusing furlough and parole to the prisoners on the grounds which are untenable under the Rules. The present case is yet another one in which the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati has passed patently illegal order contrary to the Rules. An authority discharging statutory duties under the Act or Rules framed thereunder is expected to be fully conversant with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the amendments made thereto and pass order following the Rules. However, in the present case, what we find is that respondent no.2 has passed impugned order in a most causal manner which 6 reflects total non-application of mind. 7] In view of the above, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the Competent Authority for passing fresh order in terms of Rule 19 of the Rules. The Competent Authority is directed to take decision afresh within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8] Since we have come across number of cases in which the Competent Authorities have passed orders in clear breach of the Rules, we deem it appropriate to direct Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra at Mumbai so as to enable him to take appropriate action to ensure that the Competent Authorities all over the State of Maharashtra, who have been given powers to deal with the applications seeking furlough/parole filed by the prisoners, pass appropriate orders by following the Rules in force. 9] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 10] Fees payable to Advocate K.S. Narwade, who is 7 appointed under Legal Aid Scheme are quantified at Rs. 750/- (Rupees Seven hundred fifty only). JUDGE JUDGE