A. P. LAVANDE, J. :- Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is undergoing sentence for imprisonment of life for having committed offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is challenging the order dated 11.12.2012 passed by respondent no.1 Competent Authority, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of parole. The parole leave has been Sought by the petitioner on account of serious illness of his mother-Lilabai Shankar Pawar.

3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the only ground on which the application for parole leave has been rejected is that on earlier occasion when the petitioner was released on furlough, he did not surrender in time.

4. When an application for parole is made on account of illness of a close relative, as per Rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the competent authority has to first verify as to whether the illness of the concerned person is serious or not and thereafter take into account the relevant consideration. This exercise, admittedly, has not been done by the Competent Authority. On this count alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly quashed and set aside. Respondent no. 1 is directed to pass an order afresh after verifying as to whether illness of Smt. Lilabai Shankar Pawar, mother of the petitioner is serious or not and thereafter proceed to pass an order, in accordance with law. Respondent no.1 shall pass orders afresh within a period of three weeks from today.

Rule made partly absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.

Fees of the appointed counsel are quantified at Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only).

Ordered accordingly.