1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.780 OF 2010 Mr.Illiyas Khan S/o.Latif Khan, Age-Major, Occu-Nil, R/o.At present Central Prison At Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Home Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Dy.Inspector General of Prison, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Aurangabad. 4. The Deputy Divisional Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner Office, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Mr.P.K.Lakhotia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.B.Chaudhary, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 21/09/2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail is registered as Criminal Writ Petition and we had accordingly appointed Adv.Pawan Lakhotia, learned counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3. This petition under article 226 of The Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the respondents declining to release the petitioner on parole. It appears that the petitioner had submitted an application on 05/03/2010 requesting that he be released on parole in order to attend his son, who was said to be suffering from R.H.D. (Rheumatic Heart Disease). The petitioner has annexed the certificate issued by the Medical Officer which indicates the ailment as well as it indicates that the son of the petitioner was under treatment of the Medical Officer from 28/02/2010 for a period of one month. The respondents rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the release of the petitioner was not imperative taking into consideration the gravity of the ailment and the fact that the period of treatment was over by the time the application came up for consideration. 4. According to us, the son of the petitioner is suffering from a 3 serious ailment i.e. R.H.D. Unfortunately the petitioner could not produce recent certificate before the authorities for urging his release on parole. According to us, an opportunity needs to be extended to the petitioner for submitting the recent certificate regarding the ailment of his son. We accordingly allow the petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner afresh. We grant 4 weeks time to the petitioner to produce the recent certificate before the authorities for consideration. The authorities to consider the application of the petitioner afresh by taking into consideration the recent certificate, if produced by the petitioner, within 3 weeks of the petitioner producing the said certificate. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEPT. 2010/cri.w.p.780-10