1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 161/2008 ( Panjab Vishram Ambhore vs. Divl. Commissioner, Amravati and another) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... Mr. K.S.Narwade, Adv.(appointed) for petitioner Mr Nitin Sambre P.P. for Respondents CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 29th September, 2008. *** 1. It is brought to the notice of this Court that vide order dated 29th July 2008, this Court has directed the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati to explain as to why the letter dated 25.1.2008 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Akola was dispatched as late as on 28.1.2008. Similarly, the S.P. Akola was to explain as to why there was delay in receiving the communication dated 31.1.2008 by Local Crime Branch, Akola. The S.P. Akola was was also asked to explain as to when the report dated 11.2.2008 was forwarded to the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. 2. Mr. Nitin Sambre, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Commissioner, Amravati as well as the S.P.Akola have considered this issue in all seriousness and found out that there are certain employees of their respective 2 Departments who are responsible for causing the delay. It is submitted that the Commissioner has filed an affidavit dated 18.9.2008 wherein it is mentioned that so far as the office of the Commissioner is concerned, the delay is caused due to inaction on the part of Mr. R.M. Dhaberao, Tahsildar and Y.M. Kandalkar Awal Karkoon and, departmental enquiry is already initiated against them by framing necessary charges against them. Similarly, the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Akola dated 22.9.2008 shows that Smt. Jaimala Athawale, Junior Clerk who was responsible for causing the delay in implementation of the order, so far as the Office of the S.P.Akola is concerned and, therefore, departmental action will be initiated against the said employee. 3. In the backdrop of the above-referred facts, it is evident that the Commissioner, Amravati as well as S.P. Akola, both have identified the persons who are responsible for causing the delay and departmental enquiry is also proposed against them. 4. We direct the Commissioner as well a S.P. Akola to complete the enquiry in accordance with law at the earliest. 5. Heard Mr. K.S. Narwade, the learned counsel ( appointed) for the petitioner and Mr Nitin Sambre, the learned APP for the respondents. 3 6. In the instant case, the applicant is an accused who is undergoing sentence for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC, in the Central Prison, Amravati. He had applied for parole leave on account of ill-health of his wife some time in the month of March itself. 7. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. It is not in dispute that the report submitted by the police shows that though the wife of the convict is suffering from some ailment like back-ache etc., the same is not serious enough to release the applicant on parole. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Divl. Commissioner, Amravati, rejecting the application of the applicant for grant of parole needs no interference. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. 8. The fees of the counsel appointed for the petitioner are quantified at Rs.1500/-. JUDGE JUDGE sahare