Allowed

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Feb 2011WP/104/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition alleging that the Appropriate Authority illegally assumed overstay of parole leave pending a decision on an extension application. The order set aside the impugned decision and directed the Authority to decide the pending extension application within four weeks before considering punishment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Impugned decision set aside. Petitioner remanded to Appropriate Authority to decide the pending extension application within four weeks.

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

wp-104-11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 104 OF 2011.

¶6

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi ...Petitioner.

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra ...Respondent.

¶9

Mr Mubin Solkar, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae.

¶10

Mr D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for State.

¶11

CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- 4th February, 2011.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

This petition is received through jail. The admitted facts are that

¶14

the petitioner is a life convict. He was released on parole. During the

¶15

parole period, he applied for extension of parole leave which was granted. During the extended period, he once again made another application for extension of parole leave.

¶16

It is stated by the petitioner that on the second application dated 5.8.2002 made by him for extension of parole leave before the expiry

¶17

of extended period, no decision was taken by the Appropriate Authority.

¶18

¶19

wp-104-11

¶20

However, the appropriate authority proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner over stayed the parole leave period, including the extended period.

¶21

We are in agreement with the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae that unless the second application for extension of parole leave made by the applicant were to be decided, one way or the other, it was not open to the concerned authority to assume that the petitioner over stayed the parole period, as such. Indeed, if the second application for extension of parole leave was to be rejected that assumption would be justified and the order as passed which is consistent with the rules invogue would be unexceptional. On the other hand, if the second application for further extension of parole leave period were to be allowed by the concerned authority, and if petitioner has reported back to jail within the second extended period, the question of petitioner having over stayed parole period would not arise. In the circumstances, we allow this writ petition by setting aside the impugned decision and relegate the petitioner once again before the Appropriate Authority.

¶22

The Appropriate Authority, in the first place, shall ensure that final decision is taken on the second application preferred by the petitioner for further extension of parole period while he was availing of first extended parole period. Only after the decision on the second

¶23

¶24

wp-104-11

¶25

application for extension attains finality the Appropriate Authority would be free to examine the proposal for imposing punishment against the petitioner on the ground of having over stayed the parole period. All questions in that behalf are left open to be examined on its own merit.

¶26

Accordingly, petition is disposed of with direction to the authority to first decide the second application for extension of parole period as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than four weeks from today and only thereafter proceed to decide the proposal regarding imposing punishment for over staying the parole leave. The later decision be taken within four weeks from the final decision taken on the proposal for extension of parole leave.

¶27

At this stage, learned A.P.P. submits that in all probability, the application preferred by the applicant must have been decided and that the record thereof has been destroyed. We cannot accept the suggestion that the entire record must have been destroyed by now since the convict is already in jail. However, if the application preferred by the petitioner of the year 2002, has already been finally decided, it would be a different matter. In that case, the concerned Authority may proceed with the matter on that basis under intimation to the petitioner about the said development. Besides, this we do not think it necessary

¶28

¶29

wp-104-11

¶30

to make any further observation.

¶31

Petition is disposed of on the above terms.

¶32

The Court expresses a word of gratitude to the learned Amicus

¶33

Curiae for his able assistance for espousing the cause of the petitioner.

¶34

Copy of the order be forwarded to the petitioner who is in jail

¶35

forthwith for information.

¶36

(A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nari Motiram Hira Vs Avinash Balkrishnan and Anr.

Divyesh K. Kothari Vs Sailesh H. Kothari and Ors.

Rajdev Steel (India) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammed Usman Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravikiran Vishnupant Ingawale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Parijat Prason Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.