- (1.) THE petitioner-prisoner has sent this letter petition stating the grievance that he was not being granted permanent parole despite being eligible and entitled therefor.
(2.) THE respondents have filed a reply wherefrom it appears that as on 23.05.2012, the petitioner-prisoner had indeed served the actual sentence for a period of about 14 years 6 months and 25 days; and inclusive of jail remission, the period comes to about 16 years 11 months and 19 days. It is further submitted in the reply that upon moving of an application for permanent parole by the petitioner on 03.11.2011, the requisite reports from the concerned officials of have been called and reminders have also been sent but the reports were awaited. It is submitted that as soon as the requisite reports would be received, the application for permanent parole of the petitioner shall be considered and decided. The respondents have also pointed out in the reply that the petitioner has preferred another petition for release on permanent parole, being Parole Petition No.4633/2012. It is noticed that the said petition bearing No.4633/2012 was considered and decided by us on 04.07.2012 wherein, after noticing the facts, we observed as under:- "The manner of the dealing with the matter by the authorities with such leisurely pace, cannot be appreciated when the application for permanent parole made as back as on 03.11.2011 it is said to be pending yet for wants of some reports by the authorities concerned. It is definitely expected of the concerned authorities to forward such reports without delay and for the Government to take a final decision in the matter expeditiously. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, though we do not consider it appropriate to take a final decision on the matter in this petition but it does appear appropriate to observe that the concerned authorities are expected to deal with the matter with utmost expedition and the Government should decide the application at the earliest; as far as possible, within thirty days from today. It is also considered appropriate and hence observed that the concerned authorities may be called upon by the State Government to send the requisite reports at the earliest and if they yet fail to forward such reports, the matter should be processed further without such reports, of course, while fixing the responsibility for such default. With the above observations, this petition for permanent parole stands disposed of. It is further made clear that in case of any grievance remaining with the petitioner after decision on his prayer for permanent parole by the State Government, it shall always be permissible for him to approach this Court again in accordance with law." The matter being related to the same prisoner and about the same grievance, the order aforesaid directly applies to the present petition too. Hence, this petition also stands disposed of while reiterating the directions in the order dated 04.07.2012. For office purpose: Before parting with the case, a few comments appear rather necessary: It has come to our notice in the past too that several times, such repeated petitions on the same grievance and with the same or different prayer/s are sent by the prisoner concerned or his relatives/representatives. Similarly, very many times, regularly constituted petitions are also filed with either the petitioner himself being the petitioner or by any of his relatives/representatives. We have found that there is no specific system in the registry so as to indicate matching details in regard to such similar or even identical petitions by or on behalf of the same prisoner. As the repeated petitions on behalf of the same prisoner do come up before the Court very many times, we would expect the office to evolve and put in use a system of indicating matching details regarding the case of the same prisoner; and to place all the matters concerning the same prisoner together so as to avoid the likelihood of passing of different orders.
(3.) THE present matter is an apposite illustration for the requirement stated hereinabove. We have requisitioned the record of Parole Petition No.4633/2012 and upon examining and comparing the two records, find that in fact, the same prisoner had earlier addressed the letter dated 23.04.2012 that was received in the registry on 26.04.2012 and thereupon, petition number 4633/2012 was registered. Reply in the said petition was filed on 18.05.2012 . Then, another letter was addressed by the same prisoner on 07.05.2012 that was received in the Registry on 10.05.2012 and thereupon, the present petition was registered at number 5074/2012. However, office has not indicated in the present file about any previous petition by the same prisoner. It appears, therefore, necessary that adequate steps be taken so as to evolve and put in use a system whereby matching details in relation to case of the same prisoner are placed on record. The office has already put in use such system of indicating matching details in various other matters including bail applications, MACT appeals etc. Another aspect also needs to be noticed that some times, such nature parole petitions are sent by the prisoner to the Principal Seat at Jodhpur and some times to the Bench at Jaipur; and the petitions are registered at the respective places. Instances are not unknown where in relation to the same prisoner, the petitions have been filed at both the places i.e., at Jodhpur as well as Jaipur. This aspect also requires to be taken care of. In this regard, in our view, the department dealing with prisons deserves to be directed to notify the prisoners concerned about the requirements of stating all their particulars; and the particulars of all previous petitions/letters, if any, while filing or sending the petitions to the Court. The department itself should also indicate identification particulars of the prisoner concerned. ;