Motiram Paduram Joshi vs The Superintendent And Ors

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 3777 Bom
Judgement Date : 29 June, 2017

Bombay High Court
Motiram Paduram Joshi vs The Superintendent And Ors on 29 June, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
                                                                                   5. cri wp 2438-17.doc


RMA      
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2438 OF 2017


            Motiram Paduram Joshi                                         .. Petitioner

                                  Versus
            The Superintendent,
            Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik & Ors. .. Respondents

                                                   ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. B.G. Tangsali Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. H.J. Dedia    APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM        : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                               SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : JUNE 29, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard both sides.

2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

3. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on 6.2.2017 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2017 01:18:29 :::

5. cri wp 2438-17.doc application was allowed by the Divisional Commissioner by order dated 3.5.2017. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was released on parole for a period of 30 days. The petitioner is now seeking extension of parole by a further period of 15 days.

4. Rule provides that an application for extension of parole has to be made to the competent authority i.e Divisional Commissioner, however, it is noticed that the petitioner has not approached the competent authority and instead, has directly preferred this petition. When there is an alternate remedy available, we are not inclined to exercise discretion in Writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal & Ors. Vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Dubri1, has observed that when an alternate remedy is available, a writ petition should not be entertained.




1 AIR 1964 SC 1419

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                2 of 3




       ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2017 01:18:29 :::
                                                           5. cri wp 2438-17.doc




5. In this view of the matter, it would be open to the petitioner to prefer an application for extension of parole to the competent authority, hence, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.




[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. ]             [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                       3 of 3




       ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017             ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2017 01:18:29 :::