ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
| Case no. before High Court | CRA-S-5009-SB of 2014 |
1. The petitioner who is undergoing his sentence in the case captioned above, has come up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the speaking order dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) vide which parole of the petitioner was denied by respondent No.4.
2. Sometime on 18 Nov 2021, the convict had made a written request to the concerned Jail Superintendent for release on parole for agriculture work.However vide order dated 18-11-2021, Annexure P-1, the request was turned down. Feeling aggrieved, the convict had filed this writ petition. The State filed its response and gave reasons for not sanctioning the parole.
3. The petitioner had sought parole for the specific purpose of doing agriculture work. Agriculture work varies from season to season, depending upon geographical location, irrigation facility, and soil quality. There is nothing in the petition to conclude the crop for which the petitioner wanted parole and to do which activity.
4. Given above, in the peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned in the petition, the petitioner may make a fresh request for parole, and the concerned authority shall decide the same within the statutory period and in the absence of rules or instructions within two weeks of the presentation of such application.
5. Petition is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
