1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.378/2008 [Vijay Kashinath Tayde .vrs. The State of Maharashtra and others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. V.H. Khaparde, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the respondents/State. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ DATED : JULY 17, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the respondents/State. 2. The petitioner was convicted by judgment dated 7.11.2003 and thus he is a life convict. On 31.7.2006 he had applied for parole on the ground of illness of his mother. However, by order dated 26.2.2008 the competent authority rejected his application on the ground that when on the previous occasion the petitioner was released on leave, he threatened widow and nephew of the deceased with life. The petitioner has challenged the said order. 2 3. It may be noted that the petitioner moved application for parole on the ground of serious illness of his mother. The impugned order does not at all refer to the said reason. In fact, the competent authority should have inquired into the illness or otherwise of the mother of the petitioner and should have decided the application instead the competent authority has not at all considered the ground on which the petitioner had applied for parole and proceeded to reject the application on altogether different reasons. Thus, it is purely a case of non application of mind by the competent authority. As such, the impugned order cannot be sustained. We, therefore, pass the following order : 4. The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.2.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The competent authority is directed to inquire into the illness of the mother of the petitioner and to decide his application within eight weeks by giving top priority. The fees of the counsel appointed for the petitioner are quantified at Rs.750/-. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande