1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.656 OF 2010 Ajay Waghu Ade .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mrs.Manjushri Shendge, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner Mr.N.R.Shaikh, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & P.V. HARDAS, J. DATE : 27th AUGUST 2010 PER COURT : 1. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail, came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and accordingly, when this petition was listed before the Court, this Court appointed Advocate Mrs.Manjushri Shendge as a Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition. 2. The principal grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the fresh report, which was called for by the Divisional Commissioner was not forwarded to the appropriate authority within time and consequently, the parole application of the petitioner was pending and no effective orders could be passed on the pending parole application. The petitioner, therefore, could not attend to his ailing mother and ultimately, the mother of the petitioner died during the pendency of the parole application. The petitioner, in this petition has prayed for initiating penal action against the 2 Officers responsible for the delay and the petitioner has also prayed that he be granted parole for thirty days. 3. According to us, the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy available of approaching the Human Rights Commission, if the petitioner feels that any of his rights are violated. We do not find that the authorities have committed any penal action and, therefore, jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not be invoked. In respect of grant of parole, it would be open to the petitioner to submit an appropriate application seeking his enlargement on parole. In the event such an application is filed by the petitioner, we direct the respondents to expeditiously decide the same, in accordance with law and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 4. Since we see no merit in the petition, we summarily dismiss the petition. However, we quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- (Rs.One thousand five hundred). CHIEF JUSTICE ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/656.10criwp) 3