- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMIINAL WRIT PETITION NO.779/2010 Pandit s/o Kashiram Jadhav, age 51 yrs., occu.nil, original r/o at Virgaon Post Hatta, Tq.Sillod Dist.Aurangabad, presently in Central Jail, Aurangabad. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra. 2] Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3] D.I.G. Prison, Aurangabad. 4] Superintendent, Central Jail, Aurangabad. ...Respondents... ..... Shri R.D. Sanap, Advocate appointed for petitioner. Shri D.R. Kale, APP for respondent nos.1 to 4. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 07.10.2010 PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. - 2 - 2] A communication sent by the petitioner through jail came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and accordingly we had appointed Advocate Shri R.D. Sanap to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. The limited grievance of the petitioner is against the order passed by the respondents dated 2.6.2010 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner seeking his release on parole. 3] It appears that the petitioner applied to the competent authorities seeking his release on parole on the ground that his wife was indisposed and required hospitalization. The petitioner placed reliance upon the medical certificate dated 8.2.2010, which indicated that the wife of the petitioner was suffering from PID (pelvis inflammatory disease). The medical officer had advised regular treatment and follow-up. The application of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that the ailment, with which the wife of the petitioner was suffering, was not of a serious nature and that the petitioner, who had been released on earlier occasions, had surrendered late. 4] In response to the notice issued by us, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and in the affidavit in reply, it is urged before us that the ailment of the wife of the petitioner is not serious to warrant release of the petitioner on parole. The order rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking his release on parole is justified by the respondents in the light of the facts stated in the affidavit in reply. - 3 - 5] We have heard learned counsel for the parties and according to us, the ailment, with which the wife of the petitioner is suffering, is certainly not so serious as to justify release of the petitioner on parole. The certificate, which the petitioner has produced, is dated 8.2.2010 and practically eight months have elapsed since then. We, therefore, find that the order of the authorities is justifiable and no fault can be found with it. While dismissing the petition, however, we grant liberty to the petitioner to submit an application afresh by enclosing the recent medical certificate in respect of the ailment of the wife of the petitioner. 6] Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged with the aforesaid liberty with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner at Rs.1500/- (rupees one thousand five hundred only). (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/cr710106