RAJUSINGH RAMSINGH MUNGONA Vs. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. Kalsi with Ms. Ramteke, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 138/2014 and Ms. Yogita Thengre, learned Counsel (appointed) for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 466/2014. Mrs. S.S. Jachak, learned A.P.P. has appeared in Writ Petition No. 138/2014 for respondents, while Shri Fulzele, learned A.P.P. has appeared in the later Writ Petition. Though reply is filed in Writ Petition No. 138/2014, Shri Fulzele, learned A.P.P. is seeking time of two weeks to file reply in Writ Petition No. 466/2014. By consent of the parties, Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith. Petitioner in both the matter is same. In Writ Petition No. 138/2014 he has challenged an order passed by the respondent No. 1 Divisional Commissioner, refusing him parole for 30 days to treat ailing wife, on the ground that he has in past shown the tendency of absconding. In reply filed, very same reason is being pressed into service.

(2.) Certificate issued by the Doctor was not produced on record and respondent No. 1 in the impugned order has observed that the illness of wife is not of serious nature. Petitioner along with a Pursis dated 25.03.2014 produced a certificate issued by Dr. R.M. Bhattad of Godawari Hospital, Daryapur dated 04.02.2014 to show ailment of his wife. During arguments, learned A.P.P. has produced a certificate earlier given by the petitioner, issued by Dr. Vishal Singh of Achalpur.

(3.) As the ground that the petitioner has in past shown tendency of absconding, is not being substantiated, we find that the order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the respondent No. 1 and assailed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 138/2014, unsustainable.