Ashwini Wife Of Vishwananth ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 9316 Bom

                                                                                   7. cri wp 4654-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4654 OF 2017


            Ashwini Vishwanath Hagawane                                   .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                               .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mrs. Harjeet Kaur Bhagwant Singh Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar                APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
                                              M.S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : DECEMBER 5, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner who is the wife of the prisoner preferred

an application for parole on the ground of illness. The said

application was rejected by order dated 16.5.2017. Being

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present

petition.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                    1 of 2





                                                                   7. cri wp 4654-17.doc

3. If an application for parole is rejected, a remedy of

appeal is provided. It is seen that the petitioner has not

preferred an appeal and has directly preferred this writ

petition. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in

Thansingh Nathmal Vs. The Superintendent of Taxes,

Dhubri and others, reported in A.I.R. 1964 SC 1419, has

held that "when an alternate remedy is available, a writ

petition should not be entertained". In this view of the

matter, we are not inclined to interfere and the petitioner is

relegated to the remedy available to him of appeal. If any

appeal is preferred by the petitioner against the order of

rejection, the said appeal to be disposed of as expeditiously

as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from

the date of filing of such appeal.

4. In view of above facts, we are not inclined to interfere,

hence, Rule is discharged.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J ]                         [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                               2 of 2