1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.655 OF 2010 Santosh S/o.Vasantrao More, Age-Major, Occu-Nil, C/o. At present Harsool Jail, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3. Superintendent of Police, Jalna. 4. Superintendent of Prison, Harsool Jail, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Mr.S.R.Andhale, learned counsel for the petitioner (Appointed) Mr.B.V.Wagh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 09/09/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and accordingly we had appointed Adv.Shri.Sandip R.Andhale to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. The challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the respondents rejecting the application of the petitioner for his release on parole. 3. The petitioner had submitted an application seeking his release on parole on the ground that his mother was advised Hysterectomies Surgery by the Medical Officer. The petitioner had also submitted certificated dated 13/03/2010. The respondents rejected the application of the petitioner on various grounds, one of which is that the ailment, with which the mother of the petitioner was suffering did not appear to be serious, and that the Medical Officer had not indicated the date of the surgery. Obviously, it is a planned surgery, and the date can not be fixed in advance, at least at the time of issuance of the medical certificate. According to us, the aforesaid two reasons can not be sustained. However, we find that since the certificate was issued in the month of March 2010, and practically 6 months have elapsed, and no surgery, as such, has been performed, we dismiss this petition, but grant liberty to the petitioner to submit an application again alongwith a fresh certificate of the Medical Officer indicating the necessity of the said surgery. If an application is submitted by the petitioner alongwith the fresh certificate, the respondents are directed to decide the said application, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and to ensure that 3 in the event the petitioner is to be released on parole, he would be available to attend the surgical operation of his mother. 4. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. Rule stands discharged. We quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/-. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEPT. 2010/cri.w.p.655-10