AMIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr. T.A. Mirza waives service on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Rule 25 of the Prisons [Bombay Furlough & Parole Rules, 1959, and argued that there is a discretion in the authority to extend the parole for a period of ninety days in all and, therefore, there is failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of the authority by passing the impugned order refusing to grant extension of parole, when statutorily there is a power in the authority to do so. According to him, this has resulted into miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, as he is being denied extension of parole when Rule 25 of the said Rules specifically provides for it.

(3.) In opposition to the Writ Petition, learned APP Mr. Mirza submitted that the mother of the petitioner, aged about 52 years, as verified by the Police Department, is not suffering from any aliment, as alleged. According to him, the petitioner' s mother is cured of ailments suffered by her earlier and, therefore, there was no need to extend the parole. He, thus, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.