1 2025:HHC:17027-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. : 387 of 2025 Reserved on : 27 .05.2025 Decided on : 02.06.2025 Mahender Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar , Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner- Mahender Kumar has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive reliefs, amongst others: 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:17027-DB “i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, thereby directing the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for the period of 42 days, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, thereby directing the respondents to decide the parole application (Annexure P-1) dated 15.08.2024 submitted by the petitioner in a time bound manner.” 2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, he has been convicted by the Court of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., vide judgment, dated 31st August, 2023, for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years and to pay a fine of 1,00,000/- and ₹ in default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. 3. According to the petitioner, by way of application, dated 15th August, 2024 (Annexure P-1), he has approached the respondents for availing the benefit of parole, as per the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 3 2025:HHC:17027-DB (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking parole for 42 days, for agricultural purposes. 4. The petitioner is stated to have undergone more than five years sentence. 5. On the basis of the above facts, a direction has been sought to be issued to the respondents to decide the parole application of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 6. When put to notice, the respondents-State have filed the reply, wherein a stand has been taken that the District Authorities have not recommended the parole case of the petitioner, as such, the application of the petitioner, seeking parole, has been rejected by the competent authority, vide letter, dated 31st January, 2025 (Annexure R-5). 7. In view of the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner, seeking parole, in the considered opinion of this Court, the relief, as sought by the petitioner, vide prayer clause (ii) has become infructuous, and the relief, as claimed, vide prayer clause (i), cannot be granted to him, in the absence of the challenge to the rejection order, at this 4 2025:HHC:17027-DB stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek the relief, as claimed vide prayer Clause (i), of the relief clause, by challenging the rejection order (Annexure R-5), if so advised. 8. The writ petition is disposed of, in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 02, 2025 ( rajni )