-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRI. APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.362 OF 2008 Samadhan Shivaji Patil ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents .... Ms.Smita Gaidhani Amicus Curiae for Petitioner Ms.Usha Kejriwal APP for State. .... CORAM: S.B.MHASE AND CORAM: S.B.MHASE AND CORAM: S.B.MHASE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : MARCH 25, 2008 DATE : MARCH 25, 2008 DATE : MARCH 25, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Petitioner has preferred an application for parole on the ground of illness of his mother. From the medical Certificates annexed to the petition, it is seen that mother of the Petitioner is required to undergo an operation. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though he had preferred an application for parole on 22.6.2006, his application for parole has yet not been decided. -2- 3. The learned APP had stated that the application for parole could not be decided as no report was received from the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. Hence, explanation was called for from the Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division. The Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune has filed his affidavit wherein he has stated that the original communication from the prison in respect of the parole application of the Petitioner was not received in the office of the Divisional Commissioner at Pune and hence, he could not take any decision thereon. However, it was noticed by us that the prison authorities had sent five reminders to the office of the Divisional Commissioner pertaining to the parole leave application of the Petitioner. Affidavit of the Divisional Commissioner shows that the said reminders were not put up before him and hence, he could not take any decision thereon. This averment made by the Divisional Commissioner is supported by the Office Superintendent and Head Clerk attached to the office of the Divisional Commissioner Pune Division, Pune who in his affidavit has stated that -3- as the original application pertaining to the parole leave application dated 22.6.2006 was not received by the Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, hence, the reminders came to be filed and the said reminders were not placed before the Divisional Commissioner. 4. The learned APP on instructions from the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, who is present in the Court states that application for parole of the Petitioner will be decided within three days from today. The said statement is accepted. The said parole application to be decided within three days from today. We also accept the statement made by the Divisional Commissioner that appropriate action will be taken against the Office Superintendent and Head Clerk who had filed the reminder applications and had not placed the same before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. 5. Writ Petition is disposed of. 6. We quantify the fees of appointed Advocate Ms.Smita Gaidhani at Rs.500/-. -4- [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.]