KALU SAHADEV YEMBALWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner, who is a life convict, seeks parole on account of marriage of his daughter.

(3.) Respondent No.3 rejected the application made by the petitioner for parole on the ground that there is no provision under the Prison (Bombay Parole & Furlough) Rules, 1959 for grant of parole on the ground of marriage of a relative. The impugned order does not disclose that the reason put forth by the petitioner is not correct. It also does not show that the said reason is not sufficient. It is, thus, apparent that the respondent No.3 has not taken into consideration the amendment to Rule 19 of those Rules, amended by notification dated 7.2.2007, which specifically provides that a prisoner may be released on parole for any sufficient cause. It is apparent that respondent No.3 has not applied his mind to the facts of the present case and respondent No.3 has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. As such, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it will have to be quashed and set aside. We, therefore, pass the following order.