ASHOK KUMAR Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution are that the petitioner is a detenu in pursuance of an order dated March 11, 1988, passed under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act). He was shifted from Delhi to Chandigarh Jail under orders of Delhi High Court. The petitioner applied for four weeks parole to attend on his 7-year old son Ashish, who had been advised an operation and there was no other adult male member of the family who could look after the said child. The petitioner failed to elicit any reply from the authorities. He, therefore, filed the present petition challenging the aforesaid action of the authorities as arbitrary and contrary to law and praying for his temporary release on parole for the said purpose.

(2.) IN paragraph 5 of the petition, it was stated that no similar writ petition had been filed earlier either in this Court or in the Supreme Court. It was stated in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the return that Crl. Writ No. 1428 of 1989 had been filed in this Court on May 20, 1989, by the petitioner's wife Smt. Aruna Anand, seeking three weeks parole for the petitioner. The ground mentioned was that the petitioner's son was seriously ill and was under treatment of P.G.I. Chandigarh. A reply was filed in that writ petition by Shri Kuldip Singh, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, and it was stated therein, on the basis of a letter written by Shri A.J. Pinto, Principal, St. John High School, Sector 26. Chandigarh, on July 6, 1989, that the petitioner's son Ashish Anand had attended the school on all working days in the months of April and May 1989. On the aforesaid reply having been filed, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition on July 26, 1989. with permission to file a fresh petition. It was therefore, pointed out that the assertion made in para 5 that no similar petition had been filed earlier in this Court was a mis-statement and it is contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed on this short ground. The other material averments have been traversed in the return. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties. I am of the considered view that the petition must fail.

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner. It is however, open to the petitioner to move the Central Government for appropriate relief. The present petition fails and the same is dismissed.