1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.378 OF 2010 YUSUF KASAM SARODIA V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Shri S.D.Hiwarekar, Advocate (amicus curiae) for the petitioner & Shri N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & S.S.SHINDE,JJ. Dated : 7.5.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out the impugned order dated 21.2.2010. We have gone through the same so also reply filed by State and statement annexed thereto showing the details of grant of earlier parole / furlough leaves to the petitioner and his returns to prison. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did over stay on some occasions. According to him eight times furlough / parole leaves were granted to the petitioner For four times, he did return to the prison as per schedule. However, 2 on four occasions, he was required to over stay, for which, according to him, he has suffered in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. 4. The ground raised by petitioner for his release on leave is sickness of his mother. He relied upon the certificate placed on record issued by the private Medical Officer. Page 14 is the case paper / investigation paper of the mother of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, investigation was carried out at Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and Hospital, Sion, Mumbai. We have seen the findings of 2D-Echo test, which are normal. 5. While rejecting the application, the officer concerned has given two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner earlier did not return as per the schedules and therefore, abscondance of the petitioner has been apprehended. Secondly, according to the authority, the guarantor of the petitioner - his sister - is not capable to be his guarantor. According to the authority, since sister of the petitioner is available to take care of the mother, parole leave need not be granted in favour of the petitioner. Adverse report, from the record, is seen by us. It is not a simplicitor case of over staying by the petitioner. On that count, the petitioner was required to suffer cut in the permissible remissions, in view of the relevant Rules. In the case on hand, in the order, as pointed out by Shri S.D.Hiwarekar, Advocate (amicus curiae) for the petitioner, it has been mentioned by the authority concerned 3 that twice the petitioner was required to be arrested / taken into custody by the concerned police authorities. These two instances are of the recent past, which led the authority to reject the application of the petitioner. 6. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India considers such administrative orders within the permissible powers of judicial review. This Court is in fact, concerned with the process adopted by the quasi judicial authority and not really much concerned with the ultimate result or outcome of the order. In the case on hand, the authority concerned, on receipt of the application from the petitioner, called for report, in view of the relevant Rules from the competent authority and after considering the same, rejected the application In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the writ petition. 7. In the result, the Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed. 8. We quantify Rs.2,000/-, to be paid to Shri S.D.Hiwarekar, Advocate (amicus curiae) for the petitioner towards fees and expenses. 9. We further make it clear that the petitioner is eligible to apply for grant of furlough / parole leave in accordance with the Furlough and Parole Rules and in that circumstance, the authority 4 concerned shall consider the said application as per Rules and on its own merits. (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl