Motiram Paduram Joshi vs The Superintendent And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 3777 Bom

                                                                                   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

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





                                                           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