1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 113 OF 2011 (Dnyaneshwar Ashanna Bandiwar vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Ms. Jaya Mishra, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner. Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the respondents. ….. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. APRIL 01, 2011. Heard Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment. The petitioner has preferred an application dated 06.06.2010 for parole which was received by the Prison authorities on 21.06.2010. The said application for parole was on the ground of illness of his father. The said application came to be rejected on 24.08.2010. Thereafter the petitioner has preferred second application dated 24.08.2010, which was rejected on 29.09.2010. Being aggrieved by the orders of rejection, the petitioner has preferred this petition. The case of the petitioner is that as far as first application is concerned, there is delay in considering 2 the same, hence he has prayed for compensation. As per the say of the respondents, the jail authorities have received the first application for parole on 21.06.2010 and thereafter the application for parole was processed. The office of the Divisional Commissioner called for the report. On 23.06.2010, the matter was forwarded to the Police Station, Parva, for enquiry and report. However, as no reply was received, reminders were sent on 07.07.2010, 14.07.2010, 19.07.2010, 02.08.2010 and 08.08.2010. The report from Police Station Parva, received by the Superintendent of Police on 13.08.2010 was forwarded to the office of the Divisional Commissioner on 17.08.2010 and the application came to be rejected on 24.08.2010. The applications for parole came to be rejected mainly on the ground that parole was sought on the ground of illness of the father of the petitioner, however, enquiry report revealed that in fact the father was residing with the brother of the petitioner and the brother was taking care of the father, hence, the ground that it was necessary that the petitioner be released on parole to take care of his ailing father was incorrect. Looking to the fact that the brother of the petitioner was taking care of the father of the petitioner, we find no error with the action of the authorities rejecting the application for parole. However, the only question that remains is whether there was delay in deciding the first application and whether the petitioner 3 was entitled to compensation on account of the delay. The Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal, in his affidavit has submitted a detailed explanation for the delay in sending the police report. It is also noticed that the delay mainly is on account of the concerned Police Station not sending the report in time. The affidavit further shows that the explanation has been called from the Police Station Officer, Parva and for his lapse, necessary action would be taken against him in the matter. Looking to the fact that in any event the petitioner could not have been released on parole as his brother was there to take care of the father, assuming that there was delay in considering the application, we do not find that it is a fit case for grant of any compensation. Petition is rejected. The fees of the appointed Advocate be paid as per rules. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Open Prison, Morshi. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.