Disposed

Bhaskar Shankar Wagh (C-1780) v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Aug 2016WP/598/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition complaining of inordinate delay in deciding parole applications. The Court directed authorities to decide any fresh application filed by the petitioner within four weeks and granted liberty to file a fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a fresh parole application, with a direction to decide it within four weeks.

Bhaskar Shankar Wagh (C-1780) Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

crwp598.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.598 OF 2016

¶5

Bhaskar s/o Shankar Wagh...Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra
and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

.....
Smt. S.D.Shelke, advocate (appointed) for the
petitioner
Shri S.W.Mundhe, A.P.P. for respondent/State

¶10

.....

¶11

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE
 AND
 SANGITRAO S.PATIL, JJ.

¶12

 DATED: 24.08.2016

¶13

PER COURT :-

¶14

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶15

petitioner.

¶16

2.Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has
tendered across Bar copy of the order passed by
the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune,
rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant
of parole.

¶17

2crwp598.16

¶18

3.It appears that the petitioner filed the

¶19

applications for grant of parole on 18.7.2014 and
on 2.8.2014. The respondents/authorities have
decided the said applications on 22.8.2016.

¶20

4.Wedeprecatesuchpracticeof

¶21

respondents/authorities to take the decision

¶22

causing inordinate delay of more than 2 years.
When such applications are filed, it is expected
of the respondents/authorities to take decision
within a reasonable period.

¶23

5.Be that as it may, since the applications

¶24

were filed two years prior, we grant liberty to
the petitioner to file the application fresh for
parole. In case such application is filed,

¶25

respondents/authorities shall decide the same as
expeditiously as possible, however, within four
weeks from the date of submission of such
application.

¶26

3crwp598.16

¶27

6.With the above observations, the petition
stands disposed of.

¶28

appointed in this matter as Amicus Curiae to

¶29

prosecute the cause of the petitioner through the

¶30

High Court Legal Services Sub Committee,

¶31

Aurangabad, her fees shall be paid by the said
Committee as per the Schedule of Fees maintained
by the said Committee.

¶32

dbm/crwp598.16

Bhaskar Shankar Wagh (C-1780) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Shankar Wagh (C-1780) 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lata D/O. Devidas Nikalje Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Rashid S/O. Shaikh Rasul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Laxman Bhimrao Parandkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anant S/O Namdeo Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Deepak S/O Apparao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Atma Employees Welfare Association, Aurangabad Vs Union of India and Others