1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.353 OF 2009 Shri Madhav Hasanna Pandalvar .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Shri C.V.Dharurkar, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner Shri S.K.Kadam, APP for respondent-State CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 18th JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. A letter received from the petitioner through jail complaining of rejection of his application for parole came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition. This Court, accordingly appointed Shri C.V.Dharurkar, learned Counsel to represent petitioner in this petition. 2. It appears that the petitioner who is a convict had submitted an application seeking his release on parole on the 2 ground that his wife was suffering from serious ailment which require surgical intervention i.e an operation called “Hysterectomy”. As per the procedure, report from the Police Officer, Nanded came to be obtained and thereafter the Divisional Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 6.3.2009 rejecting the application of the petitioner on two grounds, (1) that the presence of the petitioner at the time of operation was not essential as the father of the petitioner would attend to the ailing wife of the petitioner; and (2) On two previous occasions, the petitioner had surrendered late and, therefore, there was a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the authorities that the petitioner would not surrender if released on parole. 3. We have heard Shri C.V.Dharurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who has very heavily argued this petition and learned APP for the State. It appears that the Medical Officer had advised “Hysterectomy” because of the ailment with which the wife of the petitioner is suffering. Shri Dharurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that till today the surgery has not been on the wife of the petitioner. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the medical certificate issued to the petitioner which shows that his wife is required to undergo the “Hysterectomy”. 3 According to us the said certificate is extremely vague as the Medical Officer has only opined as “Ad TAH”. According to us, this certificate does not denote the seriousness of the ailment with which the wife of the petitioner is suffering nor does it denote the period of hospitalization and the nature of the surgery which is required to be performed on the wife of the petitioner. In the light of that therefore, we decline to interfere in the order passed by the respondents rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking his release on parole. We, however, grant liberty to the petitioner to submit an application afresh supported by necessary medical certificate and direct the respondents that in the event such a certificate is produced and an application is tendered, the said application be decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible uninfluenced by the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner earlier. 4. In the result, therefore, this petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to submit an application afresh and with directions to the respondents to decide the application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible uninfluenced by the rejection of the earlier application of the petitioner. 4 5. Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- (Rs.Three thousand). ( R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/353.09criwp)