1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1077 OF 2009 Dnyanoba s/o Sakharam Vikhe, Age : 53 years, Occ. Nil, Convict No.6761, Central Prison, Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 3. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Beed 4. The Assistant Police Inspector, Talwada Police Station, Talwada, Tq. Gavrai, Dist. Beed 5. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr Ajit S. Zarekar, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner; Mr K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16th December, 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 29.8.2009 rejecting the application of the petitioner for his release on parole, came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition. We had accordingly appointed Advocate Shri Ajit Zarekar as a Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3. Shri Zarekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who has ably argued on behalf of the petitioner, has pointed out to us that the certificate in respect of the illness of the son of the petitioner was issued by the Medical Officer who had his hospital at village Talwada, Tq. Gevrai, District Beed. The son of the petitioner, according to the petitioner is residing at village Talwada. The Police Officers have conducted inquiry at village Kausadi, i.e. the native place of the petitioner in Jintur Taluka, District Parbhani and consequently the report states that the gravity of the illness of the son of the petitioner could not be ascertained. In that light of the matter, the learned Counsel urges before us that the Police 3 Officers be directed to conduct an inquiry afresh in respect of the illness of the son of the petitioner. The learned A.P.P. states that it had not been disclosed that the son of the petitioner was residing at village Talwada and consequently no inquiry could be conducted at village Talwada. 4. We see considerable merit in the submission advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry had not been conducted at the place where the son of the petitioner was residing. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us the petition deserves to succeed by remitting the matter back to the respondents - authorities for conducted an inquiry afresh in respect of the illness of the son of the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authorities for conducting an inquiry afresh at village Talwada, Taluka Gevrai, District Beed or at such place which the petitioner may disclose as the residential place of his son. Rule is made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.2,000/-. ( R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp1077.09