Raunak Nababali Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 405 Bom

                                       1/4                         8-wp.588.2017.doc


nsc.
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.588 OF 2017
                       (THROUGH JAIL)

       Raunak Nababali Shaikh                          ...Petitioner

            Versus
       The State of Maharashtra                        ...Respondent


       Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner.

       Ms.G.P.Mulekar, A.P.P for the Respondent-State



                               CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
                                       REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

DATE : 2nd MARCH, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. V. K. Tahilramani, J.) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

11th May, 2015 on the ground of illness of his mother. The said

application was rejected by order dated 16th September, 2015.

2/4 8-wp.588.2017.doc

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.

The said appeal was received by the Home Department on 26th

November, 2015. The grievance of the petitioner is that though

a long time has elapsed, his appeal has not been decided.

3. Learned APP submitted that the appeal was decided

and it was dismissed by order dated 28th July, 2016. She

tendered an affidavit of Mr.Jaysing L. Pawara, Deputy Secretary,

Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, wherein the delay in

deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been

explained. It is stated therein that the orders passed by the

State Government on appeals filed by the prisoners are

communicated to the jail authorities by ordinary post. The order

dated 28th July, 2016 was communicated to the Nashik Road

Central Prison by ordinary post. However, it appears that the

said order was not received by the Nashik Road Central Prison.

Hence, it could not be communicated to the petitioner. It is

further stated in the affidavit that the Government is in the

process of setting up measures to avoid delay in communicating

the orders. It is stated that 450 appeals came to be decided in

3/4 8-wp.588.2017.doc

the period from 26th November, 2015 to 28th July, 2016 and

due to overburden of work, it took some time to decide the

appeal of the petitioner. It is stated that necessary precautions

to decide the appeals filed by the prisoners will be taken. An

unconditional apology is tendered for causing inconvenience on

account of delay in deciding the appeal.

4. We accept the unconditional apology. However, we

make it clear that in future if there is an inordinate delay in

deciding the appeal preferred by the prisoners, this Court may

take a serious note. As far as merits are concerned, the appeal

preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground

that his father who is 55 years of age is available to take care of

the mother of the petitioner. Moreover, no papers regarding the

tests which have been undergone by the mother of the

petitioner were annexed. Moreover, the operation of the mother

of the petitioner has been postponed by about a year and one

and half year. From this it appears that the illness of the mother

of the petitioner was not serious.

4/4 8-wp.588.2017.doc

5. It is on this ground that the appeal preferred by the

petitioner came to be rejected. Looking to the order rejecting

the appeal, we do not find any fault in the order. Hence, Rule is

discharged.

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)