A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr. T.A. Mirza waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Rule 25 of the Prisons [Bombay Furlough & Parole Rules, 1959, and argued that there is a discretion in the authority to extend the parole for a period of ninety days in all and, therefore, there is failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of the authority by passing the impugned order refusing to grant extension of parole, when statutorily there is a power in the authority to do so. According to him, this has resulted into miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, as he is being denied extension of parole when Rule 25 of the said Rules specifically provides for it.

3. In opposition to the Writ Petition, learned APP Mr. Mirza submitted that the mother of the petitioner, aged about 52 years, as verified by the Police Department, is not suffering from any aliment, as alleged. According to him, the petitioners mother is cured of ailments suffered by her earlier and, therefore, there was no need to extend the parole. He, thus, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

4. Heard. Perused the record. In para 5 of the Affidavit-in-Reply, there is a specific averment about the verification done by the Police Department in respect of the health of mother of the petitioner. Para 3 of the Affidavit-in-Reply gives details of grant of parole. The learned APP orally supplied additional information to this Court in that context.

The petitioner had applied for parole leave on 24th January, 2013, which application was received by the Office of Divisional Commissioner on 5th February, 2013. The police report dated 5th June, 2013 was received on 7th June, 2013, and the petitioner was actually released from jail upon grant of parole on 6th September, 2013 till 13th September, 2013. By order dated 17th September, 2013, extension of parole for seven days was granted. By another order dated 24th September, 2013, second extension of parole for ten days was granted. The total period of parole came to thirty-one days. Thereafter, by order dated 5th October, 2013, third extension for seven days was again granted, with a stipulation that the parole would not be extended any further. However, the petitioner again applied for extension of parole and, thus, on 12th October, 2013, his application was rejected.

5. The petitioner in the present case was convicted by the Trial Court for a serious charge of rape and murder of a minor girl, and was awarded death sentence, which was confirmed by this Court. The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence into a sentence for life and he is, thus, undergoing imprisonment for life. The petitioner belongs to Nagpur and he is lodged in Nagpur Central Prison. Obviously, in the jail, his relatives and friends meet him on regular basis. This Court has observed that large number of convicts undergoing sentence for life imprisonment from this area are lodged in Nagpur Central Prison despite confirmation of their sentence to life imprisonment by the final Court. It is not known as to how majority of the convicts undergoing life imprisonment from this region arc being lodged in Nagpur Central Prison, and not in other Central Jails of the State. That apart, as stated earlier, these convicts being at Nagpur, their relatives and friends meet them regularly in the prison. Despite this position, the provision of parole seems to have been misused as in the instant case which is clear from the averments in paragraph 5 and relevant portion of paragraph 6 of the Affidavit dated 19th November, 2013 filed on behalf of respondent no. 1, which are quoted below:-

"5. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed Medical Certificate dated 4th October, 2013 of Dr. S.R. Chaterjee which reveals that mother of the petitioner is suffering from hypertension with debility and the Doc