1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 248/2009 Niyaj Ahmad Abdul Jabbar Vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's order Judge's orders and Registrar's order ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram : A.P. Lavande & Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. Dated : 30th April, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner seeks parole on the ground that wedding of his younger brother has been fixed on 14th May, 2009. Perusal of the petition discloses that the petitioner is presently at Open Prison, Paithan and on 13/4/2009 he has submitted an application for parole. It is the case of the petitioner that till date, he has not received any communication in reply to his application. Mr. Badar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was called upon to satisfy this Court as to how this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and grant the relief sought for in the 2 petition. Mr. Badar placing reliance upon Rule 18 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (“the Rules” for short) and also upon judgment passed by this Court dated 5th December, 2006 passed in Criminal Writ Petition no.417/2006 in which according to the petitioner, the facts of the present case were almost identical, submitted that although the said petition was dismissed on merits, this Court did not raise any issue of jurisdiction although the petitioner in that case also was lodged in Paithan Jail. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, we find that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition since cause of action has not arisen within jurisdiction of this Bench. Admittedly, the petitioner is lodged in Paithan Jail and he has submitted an application for parole before the Superintendent of Jail at Paithan. Therefore, in our 3 considered opinion, Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Reliance placed upon Rule 18 of the Rules or the judgment in Criminal Writ Petition 417/2006 dated 5th December, 2006 is totally misplaced. Neither Rule 18 of the Rules nor the said judgment advances the case of the petitioner. In Criminal Writ Petition No.417/2006 the issue regarding jurisdiction was neither raised nor dealt with by this Court. Therefore, the said judgment is of no help to the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.