D.B. CIVIIL WRIT PAROLE PETITION No. 2623/2008 Date : 28.5.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE MR. CHAND MAL TOTLA, J. Mr. K.R. Bhati for the petitioner. Mr. V.R. Mehta, P.P. - - - - - The petitioner Dinesh @ Pappu Singh was convicted under Sections 147, 364, 330, 307 , 302 read with 149, 342 and 384 IPC. During pendency of the appeal against the said conviction dated 18.08.90, the petitioner was released on interim bail for the period of ten days by order dated 17.01.92. Petitioner did not surrender himself after completion of ten days period. Petitioner was arrested on 04.09.2000 in another case in Gujarat. In that case, the petitioner was sentenced for ten years imprisonment. Petitioner is seeking relief of sending him to Open air camp. Petitioner's said prayer was rejected by respondent by order dated 16.07.07 on the ground that petitioner is in-eligible for Open air camp as per provisions of Rule 3(m) of Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.07.07 by which he was declared in-eligible for consideration of sending him to Open air camp. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Rule 3(m) is not mandatory and word “ordinarily” cannot be read to mean that prisoner shall not be eligible. It is submitted that whenever petitioner's case matures for consideration, jail authorities are required to consider the case of the convict even when “ordinarily” convict petitioner is not entitled for open air camp. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court delivered in D.B. Misc. Parole Writ Petition No. 1174/2008 'Gaju Ram Vs. State & Ors. on 27.03.2008 (in which one of the member Justice P.C. Tatia was member to that Bench also). The convict in the present case has no right to claim right of Open air camp facility. It is a facility given to the convict after due consideration by the competent authority. Even if the case of the petitioner could have been sent for consideration to the Parole committee or the competent authority for sending him to open air camp, from the facts mentioned above and looking to his conduct, it is clear that petitioner is not entitled to Open air camp facility. Writs cannot be issued only for futile purposes when there is no merit in the case. In view of above reason, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (CHAND MAL TOTLA), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J.