-^v ^1 IN THEHIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILA8PUR (CHHATISGARH) W. P. NOJ 33:20F 2003 / -^' ^ ^ PETITIONER /' Avinash Siugh, S/o Brijbhanu Singh, aged about 33 years, Occupation " Nil, Resident of Padmanabhpur, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg [C.G] VERSUS 1. / 2. ^ t^¥ .,>y .•^^T 3. 4. 5. State af Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Home Department [Jail], Mantralaya, D K S Bhawan, Raipur (C.G] State Probation Board, a body constitutedunder Sub-Section 5, Rule 6 of Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954, through its Chairman being Principle Secretary, Govemroent of Chhattisgarh Raipur [C.G.] Director General & Inspector General of Jail, Chhattisgarh, Raipur [CG]. Superintendent, Central. Jail, Raipur [Chhattisgarh] Superinte^dent; District Jail, Durg .^ [Chhattisgarh] ^ / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: HIGH COURT OF CHRATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1332 of2003 PETITIONER : Avinash Singh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. K» Present: Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate with Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER^ORALl (Passed on 06th day of August, 2010) 1. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner made an application for release by license under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act, 1954') but the same was rejected withoutconsidermg the application in its perspective by orderdatedl4.Gl.2002. 2. Shri Bhatia, leamed counsei appearing for the State/respondents submits that under the provisions ofRule 6(7) ofthe Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1964, after completion of two years of rejection ofthe application, the prisoner may make a fresh application for release by license under the provisions ofthe Act, 1954 and that may be considered and decided by the authorities in accordance with law. 3. In view ofthe above submission, the writ petition is dismissed reser^ing liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application.In the event, the application is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law on its own merits andperspective, expeditiously. Sd/- .. ^ SatishK.AgnihoW Jud^e Amit