extension of parole.= The petitioner herein was initially granted parole for one month as per G.O.Rt.No.44, Home (Legal) Department, dated 07.01.2016 ie. from 27.02.2016 to 28.03.2016 and pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was released on parole on 27.02.2016. The said parole was extended for a period of 50 days vide G.O.Rt.No.462, Home (Legal) Department, dated 28.03.2016 and G.O.Rt.No.563, dated 28.04.2016. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation dated 06.05.2016 seeking further extension of parole for 60 days from 18.05.2016 to 16.07.2016. = Power of extension of parole is subject to the satisfaction of the authority, who empowered to grant parole. Therefore, this Court cannot extend the same on mere asking. It may be true that the parents of the petitioner are suffering from old age ailments and his son, who is six years old may not be in a position to attend to the needs and that his old aged parents may not be in a position to look after his son but that by itself cannot be a ground to extend the parole. Hence, this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered.

WP 16098 / 2016
WPSR 84135 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
YARASU SIDHARTH REDDY, KADAPA DIST  VSPRL SECY, HOME (PRISON) DEPT., HYD & ANO


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 
WRIT PETITION No. 16098 of 2016 
ORDER: 
The present Writ Petition came to be filed questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the application of the petitioner for extension of parole from 18.05.2016 to 16.07.2016. The petitioner, who is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life by the Sessions Court filed an application seeking extension of parole. 
The petitioner herein was initially granted parole for one month as per G.O.Rt.No.44, Home (Legal) Department, dated 07.01.2016 ie. from 27.02.2016 to 28.03.2016 and pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was released on parole on 27.02.2016. The said parole was extended for a period of 50 days vide G.O.Rt.No.462, Home (Legal) Department, dated 28.03.2016 and G.O.Rt.No.563, dated 28.04.2016. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation dated 06.05.2016 seeking further extension of parole for 60 days from 18.05.2016 to 16.07.2016. 
The record discloses that the application made by the petitioner was considered and his parole was being extended by one month from 17.05.2016 to 17.06.2016. The action of the Government in not considering his request for extension of parole by 60 days is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 
The Government Pleader for Home on instructions submits that extension of parole is the discretion of the Government and this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot extend the period of parole, even otherwise it is urged that the request of the petitioner for extension of parole was considered thrice. 
Many factors are taken into consideration by the Government while extending the parole. It is not a case where the request of the petitioner for parole or for extension of parole was rejected in an arbitrary or biased manner. On the other hand, the Government considered the request while granting parole and extended the same by three times. 
Power of extension of parole is subject to the satisfaction of the authority, who empowered to grant parole. Therefore, this Court cannot extend the same on mere asking. It may be true that the parents of the petitioner are suffering from old age ailments and his son, who is six years old may not be in a position to attend to the needs and that his old aged parents may not be in a position to look after his son but that by itself cannot be a ground to extend the parole. Hence, this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. 
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the orders passed by this Court on 12.05.2016, the time granted to the petitioner for surrendering before the Superintendent of Prison is extended by one week from today. However, it is always open to the petitioner to make a fresh representation for extension or release after his surrender, in which event the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law at the earliest. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand dismissed. _________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 20.06.2016 Note: Issue C.C. today. B/o gkv

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515