1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 181 OF 2011 (Anil Shyamrao Sute vs. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Shriniwas Deshpande, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner. Shri D.B. Yengal, APP for the respondents. ….. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. APRIL 08, 2011. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yengal, learned APP for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that his application dated 19.08.2010 for grant of parole came to be rejected. Parole was sought on the ground that his house was dilapidated and it was necessary to repair/ reconstruct the house. Earlier the petitioner was released on parole for 30 days. He overstayed said period and reported back on 05.08.2010 i.e. 25 days late to prison. Immediately thereafter within a period of 15 days, he preferred another application for parole on the ground that his house is in a dilapidated condition and he needs to repair the same. 2 The facts as seen from the record are that earlier the petitioner had preferred an application for parole on the ground of illness of his daughter which came to be granted on 10.06.2010 and when he was released on parole on this count, he did not report back to prison in time. He overstayed for 25 days and thereafter within 15 days of his reporting back to prison, present application for parole was submitted. It is noticed that the petitioner is making repeated applications for parole immediately one after the other on different grounds. When he could not apply for parole on the ground of illness of any relative, he has raised the ground of repair of house. It is on these grounds that his application for parole came to be rejected. Looking to the facts referred to above, we can find no fault on the part of the authorities in rejecting the application for parole. However, if the petitioner prefers a fresh application for parole, the same be decided as expeditiously as possible on its own merit. Petition is rejected. The advocate appointed for the petitioner be paid fees as per rules. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner, who is in Central Prison, Nagpur. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.