Saina vs State of Kerala

SAINA vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 31, 2021

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1642209

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1642209
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph
Decided On: May 31, 2021
Case Number: WP(C)/11584/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

SAINA

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....having come up for admission on 31.05.2021, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentdated this the 31st day of may, 2021 in the writ petition on hand the following reliefs are sought. “(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 3 and 4 th respondents to consider the application of parole of the petitioner's son.(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the petitioner to be entitled for parole.(iii) issue such other writ, order or direction which this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in thefacts and circumstances of the case, so as to securethe ends of justice.”2. the learned government pleader hassubmitted that the 2nd respondent is the appropriate authority to consider the application for parole. though it is disclosed from the averments in the writ petition that applications have been preferred severally to the 2nd respondent and left unattended to, copy of any one of those is not made available to this court alongwith the writ petition. in that event, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the writ petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent by making an application in the manner required by law. with the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. sd/- mary joseph judge mjl appendix petitioner's exhibits: exhibit p1: the true copy of the order in suo moto writ petition (c)no.1/2020 exhibit p2: the true copy of the complaint dated 24.02.2020 before the commissioner of human rights respondents' exhibits: nil /true copy/ p a to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2021 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1943 PETITIONER: SAINA, AGED 72 YEARS,W/o. HAMZA, MARIYINKATTU HOUSE, PATTALAM P.O.,FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682001. BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.THOSHIN SRI.P.M.AFSAL MOHAMED RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, POOJAPPURA, THRUVANANTHAPURAM.695012 3.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS (CENTRAL ZONE)VIYUR, THRISSUR-680010 4.THE SUPERINTENDENT, HIGH SECURITY PRISON,VIYUR, THRISSUR-680010 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31st day of May, 2021 In the Writ Petition on hand the following reliefs are sought. “(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 3 and 4 th respondents to consider the application of parole of the petitioner's son.

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the petitioner to be entitled for parole.

(iii) Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case, so as to secure

the ends of justice.”

2. The learned Government Pleader has

submitted that the 2nd respondent is the appropriate authority to consider the application for parole. Though it is disclosed from the averments in the Writ Petition that applications have been preferred severally to the 2nd respondent and left unattended to, copy of any one of those is not made available to this Court alongwith the Writ Petition. In that event, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the writ petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent by making an application in the manner required by law. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE MJL APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (C)NO.1/2020 EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.02.2020 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF HUMAN RIGHTS RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P A TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties SAINA vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph