D.B. CRIMINAL PAROLE WRIT PETITION NO.3638/2010 Wasim @ Raju Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 25.5.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAJJAN SINGH KOTHARI Mr. Kaluram Bhati, for the petitioner. Mr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor The petitioner's contention is that he is entitled to get the benefit of permanent parole /pre-mature release in accordance with the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 (for short 'Rules of 2006') as his case is covered under sub-clause (v) of clause- (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2006, which provides that prisoners who are completely blind or handicapped and are wholly dependent on others for their daily routine work, they are eligible for consideration of their case by the Advisory Board under Rule 8 for passing of appropriate order under the Rules of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Jail Authorities can forward the matter to the competent authority but the Jail Authorities have themselves decided about the eligibility of the petitioner's case and have orally refused to send the matter to the Advisory Board and, therefore, the Advisory Board has not considered the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that even the decision of the Jail Authority for not sending the matter to the Advisory Board can be challenged by the petitioner if it violates the Rules but as there is no written order, therefore, the petitioner has preferred this parole writ petition. According to the facts stated in the reply, the petitioner was convicted in :- 1]- Case No.302/02 by the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate (J.D.) No.16, Jaipur City, Jaipur, 2]- Sessions Case No.70/02 by the court of Special Judge, Counterfeit Currency Cases & Addl. District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur; 3]- Sessions Case No.36/02 by the Special Judge, Prevention of Sati & Addl. District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, 4]- Sessions Case No.67/05 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jaipur City, Jaipur and 5]- Case No.62/02 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Court (Economic Offences), Jaipur. The petitioner has not submitted any application before the Jail Authorities for his pre-mature release and, therefore, whenever the petitioner will submit his application, his case will be considered in accordance with the Rules. From the facts referred above, it is clear that according to the respondent-State yet no decision has been taken by the Competent Authority at any level in the matter under the Rules of 2006 as according to the respondent-State no application has been submitted by the petitioner. In view of the above, we direct the petitioner to submit appropriate application under the Rules of 2006 before the Competent Authority, who may pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with the Rules and shall supply a copy of the reasons to the petitioner. The petitioner will be at liberty to challenge that order if it goes against him. The Authority is expected to pass order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as any sort of recommendation for sending the matter to the higher authority where in a case the lower authority can itself take a decision. With the above directions and observations, this petition is disposed of. (SAJJAN SINGH KOTHARI), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. Sanjay/