- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.654/2010 Ravindra s/o Rangnath Kajale. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & three others. ...Respondents... ..... Mrs.Anita A. Gadekar, Advocate appointed for petitioner. Shri D.R. Kale, APP for respondents. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR , JJ. DATE: 08.09.2010 PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 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] The communication sent by the petitioner through jail came to be registered - 2 - as Criminal Writ Petition. We had accordingly appointed Mrs.Anita A. Gadekar, Advocate, to represent the petitioner in this writ petition before us. The limited grievance of the petitioner in this petition is challenge to the order dated 5.5.2010 passed by the respondent – authorities rejecting the parole application submitted by the petitioner. 3] The ground on which the petitioner sought his release on parole was that his mother required angioplasty surgery. The petitioner accordingly had annexed a certificate to that effect dated 19.1.2010. The respondents rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that on earlier two occasions, the petitioner had reported late and the guarantor had less immovable property standing on his name. The third ground ascribed by the respondents was that the date of operation of angioplasty was not specified in the certificate. 4] It appears that the petitioner on two occasions had reported late, but thereafter had been released on furlough on two occasions and the petitioner had reported within time. The aforesaid ground, therefore, according to us, can not subsist in law. In any event, it appears that subsequent to the rejection of his parole application by the impugned order dated 5.5.2010, the petitioner had presented another application, which also came to be rejected. In the light of rejection of subsequent application on the same grounds, according to us, the present impugned order does not survive for consideration. The petitioner may, if advised, challenge the order dated 12.8.2010 by which his subsequent application - 3 - came to be rejected. 5] We, thus, see no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with the liberty as stated above. Rule stands discharged. We, however, quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1500/- (rupees one thousand five hundred only). (A.V. Potdar , J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/cr89104