Chhotu Ram vs State Of H.P And Others

Sureshwar Thakur, J

Through the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner claims a direction upon the respondents concerned, to, grant his son the facility of parole.

However, Mr. Hemant Vaid, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the writ petition is premature, and, hence is not maintainable before

this Court, as, the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court would arise, only upon pronouncement of an order adversarial to the petitioner, upon, an

application for grant of parole, as, preferred by him, before the authority concerned. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits, that the

application, for parole, as was filed by the petitioner, before the authority concerned, is pending for consideration, hence yet till a decision is passed

thereon, by the authority concerned, thereupon, the writ petition can be permissibly disposed of, with a direction to the respondent concerned, to make

an expeditious decision upon the application, if any, which has been preferred therebefore, by the writ petitioner, for grant of parole.

The afore submission addressed before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General is fair, just and is accepted. Consequently, the writ

petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned, to make an expeditious decision preferably within two weeks, upon, an application

for parole, as, has been preferred by the writ petitioner before it. In case a decision adversarial is made thereon, by the authorities concerned,

thereupon it is open for the writ petitioner to canvass the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

The petition stands disposed of alongwith all pending applications.