{1} DB CW Petitions (Parole) No. 3824/2010 & 8401/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R (1) D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No. 3824/2010 Akheraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. With (2) D.B. Civil Writ Petition(Parole) No. 8401/2010 Akheraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. DATE OF ORDER: 04.08.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENA V. GOMBER By Post. Mr. J.R. Bijarnia, Addl. Government Counsel, for the respondents. Heard learned Additional Government Counsel. 2. Both the petitions have been preferred by convict-petitioner Akheraj Singh for grant of emergent parole of one month to search out suitable match for his unmarried daughter. It appears that this letter petition No. 3824/2010 dated 08.02.2010 was received by the Deputy Registrar(Judicial) of this Court on 17.02.2010 and letter petition No. 8401/2010 dated 02.06.2010 was received in the Registry on 05.06.2010. As Letter Petition No. 3824/2010 could not be disposed {2} DB CW Petitions (Parole) No. 3824/2010 & 8401/2010 of, therefore, the petitioner sent another letter petition dated 02.06.2010. Since, both the petitions have been preferred by same accused-petitioner for the same relief, therefore, we are disposing of both the petitions by this common order. 3. Convict-petitioner has preferred both the letter petitions to grant him emergent parole of one month to search out some suitable match for his unmarried daughter. The respondents have filed reply in the writ petition No. 8401/2010 wherein they have taken a preliminary objection that the petitioner has preferred these petitions without approaching the jail authority/concerned District Magistrate for grant of emergent parole as per provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners(Release on Parole) Rules, 1958(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'), therefore, the present petitions are not maintainable. 4. We have considered the submissions of learned Additional Government Counsel and find force in the same. The petitioner is entitled to file parole writ petition for grant of emergent parole before concerned authority under the Rules of 1958 but, without availing an alternate remedy by way of application before concerned authority, he {3} DB CW Petitions (Parole) No. 3824/2010 & 8401/2010 has approached this Court directly, which is not permissible. 5. Under these circumstances, we dismiss both the petitions with liberty to convict- petitioner to move appropriate application before competent authority under Rules of 1958 for grant of emergent parole. It is directed that in case the petitioner moves such an application, then the competent authority will consider the same sympathetically as per the provisions of Rules of 1958. 6. A copy of this order may be sent for information to convict-petitioner. 7. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in connected file. (MEENA V. GOMBER),J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. Manoj Item No.17 & C.1.