1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.478 OF 2011 (Bandu @ Hemant Yadavrao Kothe ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and others) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri U.R. Phasate, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.S. Fulzele, A.P.P. for the respondents. C ORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.B.DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 19-10-2011 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which takes exception to the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur dated 12th July, 2011, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking his release on parole. The petitioner had applied for his release on parole on the ground that the residential house of the petitioner, which was in a dilapidated condition, required urgent repairs. 2. In the light of the amendment to Rule 19 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the reason for release of a convict on parole on the ground of repairs of house is no longer existing as the aforesaid provision has now been deleted. In that light of the matter, the reason stated by the petitioner was not maintainable. The respondent No.1 has accordingly 2 rejected the said application and we cannot find fault with the order of the respondent No.1 rejecting the application. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, according to us, there is no error in the order passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking his release on parole. In that light of the matter, criminal writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE pma