@ Pilli Singh Ajit Singh Kalyani v. The Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors. [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 625] . He placed reliance on paragraph 26 and 27 of the said decision to contend that a prisoner can directly approach this court with the prayer for parole leave. We have carefully perused the entire decision, more, particularly paragraph 26 and 27 thereof. We find that this decision does not support the contention of Mr. Khamkar that this court can directly entertain the application for parole by by-passing the procedure laid down in Rule 19 to 24 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, (1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In fact, in the case of S. Sant Singh it is clearly stated that it is for the competent authority or the Government to decide as to whether any parole for any particular period is to be granted. The ratio of the decision in Sant Singh is that even if the appeal of the petitioner is pending before any court, parole can be granted. In this decision nowhere it is held that a
