Sunil Thomas, J. - The 65 year old mother of a life convict undergoing imprisonment in women's prison for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC along with other offences, has approached this court seeking parole for her daughter.

2. The daughter of the petitioner was sentenced for life imprisonment on 11/6/2010 in SC No. 130/2010. Petitioner claim that she is suffering from various ailments including spinal disc problem and suffering from acute joint pain. She had to undergo replacement of both her knee joints and she is struggling to take care of herself. Compelled by the circumstances, the grand daughter, who is studying in 6th standard, is now accommodated in the school hostel. The grievance of the petitioner is that the daughter had requested for parole which was rejected by the second respondent on extraneous considerations. Hence, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation requesting to grant her ordinary parole or to inform the reason why her daughter's request was declined. By Ext.P4 communication she was informed that daughter had exhausted the ordinary parole due to her and hence her request could not be acceded to. Hence, petitioner sought quashing of Ext.P4 and directing respondents to grant parole to the daughter of the petitioner for a period of three months by allowing Ext.P3 application.

3. Facts discernible from the available records show that the daughter of the petitioner had initially availed parole for 15 days during the calender year. Later when parole was sought, it was denied by the jail authorities on the ground that model code of conduct issued by the Election Commission had interdicted granting of parole during the relevant time. Thereafter, she sought suspension of sentence. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 26/4/2016, instead of suspending the sentence granted parole for one month. The necessity that was urged before the Division Bench was that the girl child of the convict required admission in a school and the presence of the mother was imperatively essential, when there were no other immediate family members to take care of the child. The Division Bench granted parole for a period of one month taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case. Thereafter, she preferred W.P. (C) No. 19100/2016 before this Court seeking extension of parole on the ground that her attempt to obtain admission to the child in a school failed and hence, she needed 15 more days parole, to procure admission for the child in any other school. She had earlier preferred an application before the Superintendent of women's jail seeking extension of parole, which was declined. Hence, she sought appropriate direction in the writ petition. Considering the special circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Superintendent of Jail to consider her application and to grant 15 more days parole if there was no legal impediment. The present writ petition is submitted by her mother seeking parole for her daughter on a premise that 45 days parole granted by this Court was in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction and hence cannot be reckoned as part of the ordinary parole of 60 days which is available as per Rules.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor who opposed the application submitted that the criminal appeal filed by her challenging the conviction was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. The petitioner herein had submitted Ext.P3 application seeking reason for the refusal to grant parole. She contended that the daughter had availed only 15 days parole and that, 45 days parole was granted by this Court by Exts.P1 and P2 considering the special circumstances and on purely humanitarian considerations. By Ext.P4 reply, petitioner was informed that daughter had already availed parole totalling to 60 days and thereby had exhausted permissible limit of parole in accordance with Rule 397 of the Prison and Correctional Services (Management) Rules 2014. It was contended that