Harmesh Kaur 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 her 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 her, upon, an application for grant of

parole, as, preferred by the applicant, 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 to her.

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 anexpeditious 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.