FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CR.WP/597/2010 VISHNU V/S STATE 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. On the ground of illness of wife, parole leave was granted to the petitioner for thirty days. Thereafter, the petitioner sought extension thereof on the ground of continued sickness of his wife. On receipt of the said application, report was called from Superintendent of Police, Nanded. It has been submitted. The competent authority – respondent received the same on 20.4.2010. It has taken into consideration the ground raised in the application and medical certificates placed on record by the petitioner. Competent authority was however, not satisfied with the ground raised and material adduced on record. According to respondent – competent authority, no material is placed on record in relation to treatment, if any, given to her. Nature of illness of wife of petitioner is also considered by the respondent authority. Ultimately, the request of the petitioner was rejected. Said order is impugned in this writ petition. 4. Affidavit in reply, duly sworn by Shri Govind Chavan, Tahsildar has been filed on behalf of the respondents. We have gone through the same. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS (2) 5. In our view, the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse. This writ petition is devoid of merit and needs to be dismissed. We are, however, inclined to grant liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appropriate application, if he wishes, in accordance with the provisions of law for grant of or extension of parole and in that eventuality respondents shall consider the said application and pass appropriate order according to law. 6. Writ Petition stands dismissed with liberty as above. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. 7. We quantify Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand only/-) towards costs and expenses to be paid to Ms. Zainab M.Surti, learned Advocate (amicus curiae) for the petitioner. (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) Dt.12.8.2010 akl