1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.574 OF 2011 (Mukesh Ramji Yadav ..vs..Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and another) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mrs. S.P. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri R.S. Nayak, A.P.P. for the respondents. C ORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.B.DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 19-10-2011 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 13-10-2011 passed by respondent No.1 declining to grant extension to the petitioner of his parole leave. 2. It appears that the petitioner had applied for parole of 30 days on 13-9-2011 on the ground that the mother of the petitioner was suffering from heart ailment and therefore, required constant attention. The respondent authorities accordingly granted parole of 15 days. The petitioner thereafter had applied for extension of parole on 22-9-2011. An extension of 15 days came to be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter again applied for extension on 10-10-2011, which application came to be rejected by the impugned order. 3. The petitioner has annexed a certificate of the 2 Medical Officer in respect of the ailment of the petitioner. The medical certificate, which is dated 07-10-2011, indicates that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from IHD with unstable angina with breathlessness. The Medical Officer has also indicated that the mother of the petitioner may require coronary angiography or she may require hospitalization with medical attendant. 4. The petitioner had been released on parole initially for a period of 15 days and thereafter extension of 15 days also came to be granted to the petitioner. Obviously if the health of the mother of the petitioner is serious and requires any coronary angiography or angioplasty, the same could have been done during one month when the petitioner had been released. The authorities have indicated that the brother of the petitioner, who is an adult, is capable of looking after the mother of the petitioner. 5. We have heard Mrs. S.P. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the respondents and we have perused the order impugned in the present petition. Upon such perusal, according to us, the order impugned in the present petition does not require any interference and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed summarily with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE pma