The petitioner sought criminal action for delay in forwarding a report for his parole application. The court noted an application was rejected and show-cause notice issued. Without merit, the petition was dismissed.
Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp455.2012.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 455 of 2012
Abdul Wajid @ Gour Sayeed
V/s.
The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and two others
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.
Ms S. P. Kulkarni, Advocate (Appointed) for the Petitioner Shri R. S. Nayak, APP for the Respondents
CORAM : P. V. HARDAS & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 3, 2012.
A communication addressed by the petitioner from Jail and has been registered as a Criminal Writ Petition. We had accordingly appointed Ms S. P. Kulkarni, learned Counsel, to represent the petitioner in this petition.
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for taking suitable criminal action against the respondent No. 3 for the enormous delay in forwarding a police report to the authorities for deciding the application of the petitioner seeking his release on parole.
wp455.2012.odt
2
It appears that there was a delay of about 56 days on the part of the police in forwarding the report to the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor states on instructions that a show-cause notice has been issued by the Superintendent of Police on 13th September, 2012 calling for explanation from the erring police officers. In the light of the aforesaid development, we are not inclined to interfere in the present petition. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further states that the application of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 17th September, 2012. The aforesaid order is not subject matter of the challenge in the present petition. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Fee payable to the learned Counsel [appointed] for the petitioner is quantified at Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only).
JUDGE
JUDGE
Punde
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this court should interfere with the delay in forwarding a police report regarding the petitioner's parole application.
Abdul Wajid @ Gour Sayeed
The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati
two others
P. V. Hardas
A. P. Bhangale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
