Gopichand Madhukar Khajure vs The Divisional Commissioner and Another

R.C. Chavan, J.—Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the parties. This petition questions the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati on 1/12/2012 refusing extension of parole sought by the petitioner on 20/9/2012. The petitioner reported back to the Prison on 5/11/2012. Thereafter the order rejecting the prayer for extension of parole was passed.

We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and have also gone through the reply filed on behalf of respondents. When the petitioner had sought extension of parole on 20/9/2012, it was necessary for the Authority to consider the application and pass an appropriate order promptly. The order itself was passed after the petitioner reported back to the Prison on 5/11/2012. Thus, what the Authority now seeks to do is to portray the petitioner as a person, who has over-stayed the parole. We have our own doubt as to whether this could be permitted though we also do not approve of the conduct of the petitioner in presuming that extension of parole would be granted.

In the circumstances, the criminal writ petition is allowed. The Authority may re-consider the order dated 1/12/2012 and pass appropriate orders extending parole till the date the petitioner reported back to the Prison. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. We quantify the fee payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner as rupees one thousand.