Bombay High Court
Anil Ramaji Surkar (In Jail) vs The Divisional Commissioner, ... on 18 February, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
3.Cri.w.p.1135.2018.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1135/2018
Anil Ramaji Surkar,
C-4544, Central Prison, Amravati
District Amravati. ..... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division,
Bye Pass Road, Camp,
Amravati.
2. The Supdt of Prison,
Central Prison,
Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Tarun Parmar, Appointed counsel for petitioner.
Miss. H. N. Jaipurkar, APP for respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED : 18/02/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
1] Heard.
2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3] Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing
for the parties.
3.Cri.w.p.1135.2018.odt
4] The petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of
the show cause notice dated 29.07.2016 calling upon him as to why
punishment of deduction of remission period by 300 days (60 x 5) @ 1:5
for the misconduct of the petitioner in his reporting late to the Jail
Authorities after his release on parole be not imposed. The delay caused
in petitioners surrendering himself before the Jail Authorities is of 60
days.
5] It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that his parole leave was to expire on 29.05.2016 and before expiry of
the parole leave, the petitioner had applied on 11.05.2016 for extension
of the parole leave for a further period of 30 days and even before this
application was decided by the competent Authority i.e. the respondent
no.1, the impugned show cause notice came to be issued to him.
6] So far as the dates and the period of delay are concerned,
there is no dispute. The dispute is only about the Authority of the
respondent no.2 in issuing show cause notice to the petitioner.
7] Upon receiving personal instructions from Pandurang
Shamrao Bhusare, In-charge Superintendent, who is personally present
in Court, learned APP, submits that the application was indeed received
well in time by the respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 performed his
duty by forwarding the application to the respondent no.1 and
3.Cri.w.p.1135.2018.odt
respondent no.2 is not aware as to why this application was not decided
by respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 has not filed any reply in this
matter. But, the fact remains that the application seeking extension of
parole leave was filed by the petitioner well in time and therefore, we
are of the opinion that unless and until this such an application was
decided, respondent no.2 had no authority in law to issue any show
cause notice such as the one impugned in this petition. It appears to us
that the application dated 11.05.2016 is still pending with respondent
no.1 and it would be necessary that this application is decided by the
respondent no.1 in accordance with law before any action is proposed to
be taken against the petitioner, if it is required and it would be required
only in case such an application is rejected by the respondent no.1 and
such rejection attains finality in law.
8] In these circumstances, we find that this petition deserves to
be partly allowed and it is partly allowed accordingly. The impugned
show cause notice is hereby quashed and set aside and so also all the
actions taken in consequence of the impugned show cause notice. The
respondent no.1 is directed to decide the application dated 11.05.2016
within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.
The respondent no.1 is further directed to offer reasonable opportunity
of hearing and also liberty to the petitioner to file on record documents,
in proof of his claim, if the petitioner, so desires.
3.Cri.w.p.1135.2018.odt
9] Legal remuneration of Rs. 2,500/- (Rs. Two Thousand Five
Hundred Only) be paid to the learned appointed counsel.
Rule is made absolute.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)
Sarkate.
