IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.13729 OF 2017 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
JUMMANNA YALLAPPA KAMANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS CONVICT NO 2293 CENTRAL PRISON DHARWAD – 580 008.
(BY MR. KAPIL DIXIT, ADV.) AND:
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BAGALKOT DISTRICT BAGALKOT – 587101 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON DHARWAD – 580008 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560001.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (BY MR. VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA R-1 & 2) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON GENERAL PAROLE TO VISIT HIS HOMETOWN AND HIS AILING MOTHER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Kapil Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner on general parole to visit his hometown and his ailing mother.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he be granted with a liberty to make a representation before the competent authority. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that if such a representation is made by the petitioner the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
3. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner that in case a representation is made with regard to his grievance raised in the petition to the competent authority, the same shall be decided by the competent authority by a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS