Bombay High Court
Duryodhan Ramdhan Rathod vs State Of Mah., Thr. Divisional ... on 11 November, 2019
Author: Z.A.Haq
Bench: Z.A.Haq, M.G.Giratkar
Judgment 1 wp492.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 492 OF 2019
Duryodhan Ramdhan Rathod,
C-5318, Detained in Central Prison,
Amravati. (In Jail)
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
the Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati.
2. The Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati.
.... RESPONDENTS.
___________________________________________________________________
Ms A.A.Ghonge, Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner.
Shri T.A.Mirza, A.P. P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 11 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Z.A.Haq, J.)
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 16:18:00 :::
Judgment 2 wp492.19.odt
3. By this petition, the petitioner (prisoner) has challenged the order passed by the Competent Authority rejecting his prayer for grant of parole leave.
The petitioner sought regular parole leave as per Rule 19(2)(b) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 on the ground that his wife was due for delivery. The petitioner had sought parole leave of 50 days.
4. The facts on record show that the petitioner (prisoner) had submitted application seeking parole leave, to the Central Prison, Amravati on 20th November 2018 and it was forwarded along with covering letter of the Superintendent Central Prison, Amravati to the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati on the same day.
5. According to the respondents, the application of the petitioner was received by the office of the Divisional Commissioner on 28 th December 2018 and it was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Washim for his report. According to the respondents, the Superintendent of Police, Washim submitted report dated 11th January 2019 which was received by the office of the Divisional Commissioner on 31 st January 2019 and then order was passed on 5th February 2019.
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 16:18:00 :::
Judgment 3 wp492.19.odt
6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that the impugned order dated 5th February 2019 shows that the application submitted by the petitioner seeking parole leave was received by the office of the Divisional Commissioner on 26th November 2018.
7. From the facts on record, we find that there is no justification for the delay in dealing with the application of the petiitoner. The approach of the concerned officers had been very callous in the matter and it ultimately has frustrated the request made by the petitioner for grant of parole leave on the ground that his wife was due for delivery.
8. At the time of hearing of this petition, the learned A.P.P. tried to justify the inaction of the respondents on various grounds. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the petitioner had not pointed out the due date of delivery and that his wife was suffering from serious illness, which required his release on parole leave immediately. It is further submitted that the inquiry conducted by the Police Authorities shows that the claim of the petitioner that his wife was suffering from serious illness was not correct.
The submissions made by the learned A.P.P. before this Court is not in consonance with the facts of the case. The application of the petitioner for grant of parole leave on the ground that his wife was due for delivery has not been dealt with due diligence and there has been callousness ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 16:18:00 ::: Judgment 4 wp492.19.odt on the part of the concerned officers in discharging their statutory obligations. In fact, superior authorities should have on their own taken note of the callous approach of the concerned officers and should have conducted departmental enquiry against those officers. However, the same is not done, and on the contrary the inaction is tried to be justified.
9. Hence, we are constrained to pass the following order:
i) The respondent No.1/State of Maharashtra shall pay compensation of Rupees Ten Thousand to the petitioner for not considering his application for grant of parole leave with due diligence. The amount of compensation shall be deposited in the account of the petitioner within three months from today.
ii) The respondent No.1/ State shall conduct departmental enquiry against the erring officers and shall recover the amount of compensation paid to the petitioner from the officers found to be guilty.
iii) As far as prayer of the petitioner to set aside the impugned order is concerned, it does not require consideration at this stage, as the reason for which the petitioner had sought parole leave does not exist. The petitioner is granted liberty to move ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 16:18:00 ::: Judgment 5 wp492.19.odt further application seeking parole leave, if so advised and if such application is moved it shall be decided as per law within one month.
The Writ Petition is disposed in the above terms.
(M.G.GIRATKAR, J) (Z.A.HAQ, J)
RRaut..
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 16:18:00 :::