Kiran Anil Pujari v. The State Of Maharashtra

Sherla V.

wp.1703.2015_9.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1703 OF 2015 Kiran Anil Pujari ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms.Rohini Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner Mr.H.J. Dedia, APP, for Respondent - State CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE: AUGUST 2, 2016 ORAL ORDER (PER SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.):

1.

Heard both sides.

2.

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3.

The petitioner is praying for parole on the ground of illness of his father. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on 5.11.2014. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 20.2.2015, hence, this petition.

4.

It is seen that against the rejection of the application for parole, remedy of appeal is provided. The petitioner has not exhausted that remedy. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of 1 / 2

wp.1703.2015_9.doc Thansingh Nathmal and others Vs. Superintendent of Taxes Dhubri1, has observed that when there is an alternate remedy, writ petition should not be entertained. Looking to the fact that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of preferring the appeal, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. Hence, rule is discharged. 5.

If the petitioner prefers the appeal, the appeal to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible by the concerned authorities. 6.

Fees to be paid to the appointed Counsel are quantified at Rs.2,500/-.

7.

Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kolhapur.

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) AIR 1962 SC 1419 2 / 2