1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1154/2009 Kalyan S/o Kisan Bhondave Age 38 years, Occ-Prisoner R/o Open Prison, Paithan Tq.Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad. PETITIONER VS 1] The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court Bench at Aurangabad 2] The Divisional Commissioner (Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad) 3] The Superintendent of Prison Open Prison, Paithan. RESPONDENTS .... Shri C.V.Dharurkar,Adv.for petitioner Shri S.V.Kurundkar,APP for respondent-State .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & R.K.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE :19/12/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :[PER HARDAS,J.] 1] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the 2 stage of admission. 2] By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the order of the respondents dated 21/8/2009, rejecting application of the petitioner seeking his release on parole on the ground of ailment of his mother. It appears that the impugned order came to be passed on the ground that as per the Government Resolution, a period of 1 year has to elapse from the date of last release of the convict either on parole or furlough before a fresh application can be submitted. The petitioner takes exception to this impugned order. Mr.Dharurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the fact that the police report submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Baramati, Division Pune (Rural) is in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as in the said report, it was stated that the mother of the petitioner was in fact suffering from an ailment and therefore, release of the petitioner on parole was justified. The respondents however, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, had rejected the application on a different ground altogether. 3] Shri Dharurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the petitioner had submitted an application on 17/7/2009. The impugned order came to be passed on the ground that the application submitted by the petitioner was within 1 year from his last release and therefore, he was not entitled to be released on parole. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the period of 1 year ought to have been reckoned from the date when 3 the authorities were called upon to decide the aforesaid application. 4] In any event, the respondent had decided the application on 21/8/09 and had rejected the same on the ground that the period of 1 year had not elapsed from the date of last release. Presently when the petitioner is required to submit an application afresh, the same could be entertained on the ground that period of 1 year has elapsed. According to us, it would indeed be a travesty of justice to require the petitioner to submit an application afresh and undergo the entire time consuming process of awaiting for the receipt of the report of the police officers. In that light of the matter, therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21/8/09 and direct the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law as if the application had been submitted after period of 1 year had elapsed. The authorities will decide the application of the petitioner after taking into consideration the report of the police, which was made available to the authorities while deciding the application of the petitioner dated 17/7/09. It is needless to state that liberty would be available to the petitioner for submitting the additional medical certificate, if the petitioner so desires. The application of the petitioner to be decided in accordance with law uninfluenced by the rejection of earlier application submitted by the petitioner within a period of 2 weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 4 5] Rule is thus made absolute on the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. [R.K.DESHPANDE] [P.V.HARDAS] JUDGE JUDGE umg/criwp1154-2009