Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pandit Shankar Kalan, an adult male residing in Thane district and presently lodged in Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the rejection of his parole application. He had initially been lodged in Kalamba Central Prison, Kolhapur. The petitioner applied for parole on 28 December 2016. The application was rejected by order dated 14 March 2017. Aggrieved, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by order dated 13 June 2017. The rejection order cited Rule 4(3) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules (Amendment), Rules 2016 as the ground for rejection, while the appellate order cited Rules 4(11) and 4(13) as the grounds for dismissal. The court observed that the reasons for rejection and dismissal were not in consonance with each other and were entirely different. The court held that such orders cannot be allowed to stand and accordingly quashed and set aside both orders. The court directed the concerned authorities to consider the petitioner's parole application afresh and to do so within four weeks. The rule was made absolute in those terms. The court also noted that the petitioner was initially lodged in Kalamba Central Prison, Kolhapur, but is now at Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai, and directed the authorities to ensure the order is served on the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Parole - Inconsistent Reasons in Rejection Orders - Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules (Amendment), Rules 2016, Rules 4(3), 4(11), 4(13) - The petitioner's parole application was rejected by the authority under Rule 4(3), while the appellate order dismissed the appeal under Rules 4(11) and 4(13). The court held that such orders with entirely different reasons cannot be allowed to stand and quashed both orders, directing fresh consideration within four weeks (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders rejecting the petitioner's parole application and dismissing the appeal can stand when they contain entirely different and inconsistent reasons.
Final Decision
The court quashed and set aside the order dated 14.3.2017 rejecting the parole application and the order dated 13.6.2017 dismissing the appeal. Directed the concerned authorities to consider the petitioner's application for parole afresh within four weeks. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Parole rejection orders must contain consistent reasons
- Rule 4(3)
- Rule 4(11)
- Rule 4(13) of Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules (Amendment)
- Rules 2016
