(1.) The Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. B.N.Kirpal, (as he then was) of this Court sitting with Mr. R.K. Abichandani, J., on 18th August 1994, considering the rival submissions, referred four questions to the Larger Bench which are as under :-
(2.) The applicant of Special Criminal Application No.1164/94 who was convicted by a competent court u/s 3[3] and 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act, [hereinafter referred as `TADA Act'] preferred an application for parole for a period of 10 days on a humanitarian ground, namely the marriage of his son. It is averred in the petition that on 5/8/94, applications were forwarded to the respondents but respondents have not replied to the petitioner. It is further averred that at last moment if application is rejected, it would not be possible to approach the Court thereafter for obtaining relief as by the time the Additional Public Prosecutor obtains instructions, the petition would become infructuous.
(3.) The petitioner has no where mentioned in the application that the applicant has preferred an appeal against the order of conviction or not, and if preferred, what is the stage of the appeal. This aspect being a very relevant aspect, the petitioner ought to have mentioned about it. The petitioner has mentioned in para [7] of the petition about the fact of not filing an application or appeal before any Court in the subject matter - meaning thereby in the matter of parole.