Kalicharan vs State Of Maharashtra And Others

Sunil B. Shukre, J

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioner has raised his grievance for not providing him the telephone facility to talk to his family members.

During the pendency of this petition, as seen from the reply of the respondents, telephone facility has been provided to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was only after the notice was issued by this Court, the telephone facility is provided to the petitioner. He submits that petitioner being from a weaker section of the society has been belatedly provided the telephone facility. The reply does not directly clarify the belated providing of telephone facility to the petitioner. However, it impliedly gives some explanation in this regard which is to be found in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the reply. It appears that before telephone facility is provided to a prisoner, verification regarding the correctness of the telephone numbers provided by the prisoner as per applicable norms is required to be done. It is further seen that this process has taken some time. The respondents received police verification in this regard on 18.11.2022 and thereafter telephone facility was provided to the petitioner on 24.11.2022. Thus, we find no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that prison authorities are discriminating against the poor and backward prisoners. The petition now being rendered infructuous, it is disposed of accordingly. Rule discharged.