Hiraman Rama Bhoye vs The Divisional Commissioner
2017 Latest Caselaw 8691 Bom

                                                                                27. wp 4052.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4052  OF 2017

                 Hiraman Rama Bhoye                          .. Petitioner
                      Vs.
                 The Divisional Commissioner                 .. Respondent

                 Ms.Rohini Dandekar, for the Petitioner.
                 Mr.Arfan Sait, APP  for State.


                                               CORAM : SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
                                                              M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

14th NOVEMBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V .K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

17/11/2014 on the ground of illness of his father. As the

petitioner wanted to spend his period of parole in the State of

Gujarat, police report was called from Vapi in the State of

Gujarat. Gujarat police sent report dated 20/01/2014 which

was received by the jail authorities on 17/02/2014. However, as

the petitioner did not agree with the said enquiry report sent by

27. wp 4052.17.doc

the Gujarat police, by letter dated 06/03/2014, he asked for a

fresh inquiry report from the Gujarat police. Hence, fresh

enquiry report was called for, however, till 15/07/2017, no fresh

enquiry report was received from Gujarat police. Hence, by

order dated 15/07/2017, the application of the petitioner for

parole came to be rejected.

3. Being aggrieved by the above order of rejection, this

Petition has been preferred.

4. However, it is seen that against the order rejecting

an application for parole, remedy of Appeal has been provided.

The petitioner has not exhausted the said remedy and has

directly approached this Court. The Constitution Bench of the

Supreme Court in case of 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

27. wp 4052.17.doc

petitioner is relegated to the remedy available to him of appeal.

Rule is discharged.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)