Dismissed

Babu Gulabrao Varma, C/7482 v. the Divisional Commissioner Nagpur Division Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC10 Aug 2012WP/367/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of a parole application but granted liberty to submit a fresh application stating reasons for the house's dilapidated condition.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition with liberty to submit an afresh parole application stating the reasons for house dilapidation, to be decided by the respondent within three months.

Babu Gulabrao Varma, C/7482 Vs the Divisional Commissioner… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 wp367.12.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.367 OF 2012

¶4

Babu Gulabrao Varma Vs.

¶5

The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and another

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Ms. S. H. Bhatia, counsel for Petitioner (Appointed). Mrs. N.R.Tripathi, APP for respondents.

¶8

A communication addressed by the petitioner from the Jail is registered as a Criminal Writ Petition. When this petition was placed before this Court for admission, we had appointed Ms. S. H. Bhatia, the learned counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition.

¶9

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the correctness of the order dated 10.1.2012 by which the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur rejected the application of the petitioner

¶10

.....2/-

¶11

2 wp367.12.odt

¶12

seeking his release on parole on the ground of repairs of his residential house.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the petitioner very fairly admitted that in the application, which was submitted before the authorities seeking release of the petitioner on parole, the petitioner had not stated the reason as to why either the house had collapsed or was in a dilapidated condition. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us, it would be proper if liberty is granted to the petitioner for submitting an application afresh. In the light of the application submitted by the petitioner and the decision rendered thereon, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, but we are inclined to grant the petitioner liberty for submitting an application afresh.

¶14

We accordingly dismiss this petition granting liberty to the petitioner for submitting an application afresh stating the reason as to why either the house had collapsed or it was in a dilapidated condition. We, however, direct the respondent to decide the application, if submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the its application.

¶15

This petition is accordingly dismissed with

¶16

.....3/-

¶17

3 wp367.12.odt

¶18

no order as to costs.

¶19

Fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner is quantified at Rs. 1,500/-.

¶20

JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

brw

¶22

...../-

Babu Gulabrao Varma, C/7482 v. the Divisional Commissioner Nagpur Division Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Gulabrao Varma, C/7482 v. the Divisional Commissioner Nagpur Division Nagpur and Another

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

Nilesh S/O Rameshchandra Baheti and 3 Others Vs Shri Kamalkishore S/O Bulchand Baheti and 3 Others

Nilesh S/O Rameshchandra Baheti and 3 Others Vs Shri Kamalkishore S/O Bulchand Baheti and 3 Others

Mohammad Shafique Mohammad Yakub @ Shafique Raja Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary of Home Deptt. and Others

Bahuudeshiya Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Uva Sanstha Thr. Its President Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Padmanabh S/O Gajrajsingh Thakur Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Anr.

Janmanch Thr. Its Secty., Rajeev Gajanan Jagtap Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Ors.