Bombay High Court
Ashish Venkatrao Fad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 January, 2018
17. cri wp 4429-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4429 OF 2017
Ashish Venkatrao Fad .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
M.S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 10, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter
is heard finally by consent of parties.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on
10.6.2017. This petition has been preferred on 6.10.2017
wherein it is stated that the stipulated time to decide the
application for parole as per G.R. dated 1.8.2007 is 45 days,
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
17. cri wp 4429-17.doc
however though 45 days had lapsed, the Divisional
Commissioner had not decided the application of the
petitioner for parole. Hence, the petitioner prayed that
action be taken against the Divisional Commissioner.
3. Learned APP admits that G.R. dated 1.8.2007 states
that the application for parole is to be decided within 45
working days, however, he pointed out that the same G.R.
also makes a reference how the application is to be dealt
with at various levels. He pointed out that as per said G.R.,
vide Item Nos. 4, 5 and 6, the Competent Authority has to
decide the parole application of the prisoner / convict within
24 (7+7+10) working days after receipt of the police report
to their office.
4. In the present case, the application of the petitioner for
parole dated 10.6.2017 is decided by the Competent
Authority on 18.10.2017. The police report was received on
11.8.2017. Thus, from 11.8.2017 to 18.10.2017, it took 69
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
17. cri wp 4429-17.doc
days to dispose of the application. In between 11.8.2017 to
18.10.2017, there were 23 holidays on account of Sundays,
2nd and 4th non-working Saturdays and State Government's
notified holidays. Thus, if the period of 23 days is excluded
from the period of 69 days, the effective working days would
be 46 days. Out of this, if as per G.R. dated 1.8.2007, 24
working days are subtracted, the period would come to 22
days. Further the Competent Authority was on official tour
for 11 days between 11.8.2017 to 18.10.2017. The
Competent Authority had also taken casual leave of 2 days
between 11.8.2017 to 18.10.2017. During the said period i.e
11.8.2017 to 18.10.2017, on 4 days, the Competent
Authority was involved in urgent and important meetings.
Thus, if the period of 17 days are excluded from
consideration, the actual delay would be only of 5 days.
5. Shri. Vijay Baburao Sonar, Naib Tahsildar, General
Administration, Nashik Division, Nashik who has filed the
affidavit on behalf of the Competent Authority has stated
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
17. cri wp 4429-17.doc
that the delay caused was inadvertent and an apology has
been tendered on account of the said delay. It is further
stated that the office of the Competent Authority has issued
an internal circular / communication dated 26.12.2017
thereby mandating and directing that any application
pertaining to the parole leave shall be immediately
forwarded to the parole desk within one day. A copy of the
said circular is annexed to the affidavit.
6. Looking to the facts of this case, it cannot be said that
there was any negligence or callousness on the part of the
authorities. Thus, we find no merit in the prayer made by
the petitioner that the disciplinary action should be taken
against the Competent Authority. Hence, Rule is discharged.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
