Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. Serial bomb blasts took place in five trains on December 06, 1993 at the behest of certain miscreants on the first anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition. As per the allegations of the prosecution, a conspirational meeting was held in this behalf in Lucknow a couple of months before, to carry out the aforesaid operations. Six separate First Information Reports (FIRs) came to be registered where this bomb blast had taken place, namely, at Kota, Allahabad, Kanpur, Gujarat, Malkajgiri and Karjat. Five of these FIRs were clubbed together and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA) were also invoked. The Appellant herein was one of the Accused persons and one of the allegations levelled against him was that he had supplied explosive material to Accused No. 1 for which he was paid money by the said Accused. Outcome of the trial by the CBI Court was that the Appellant, along with others, was convicted under TADA and awarded life imprisonment on February 28, 2004. This conviction has been upheld by this Court as well and, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the Appellant has attained finality. In this appeal, the issue pertains to grant of parole to the Appellant.

2. The Appellant had submitted an application for grant of regular parole for twenty days before the District Parole Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'Advisory Committee') in the year 2014. His request was rejected by the said Committee on the ground that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain parole for TADA prisoners. This action of the Advisory Committee was challenged by the Appellant in the form of writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was filed in the High Court of Rajasthan. The High Court disposed of this writ petition vide order dated March 21, 2014 with the direction that his application be forwarded to the Advisory Committee to examine the same in accordance with law. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Advisory Committee considered the application of the Appellant for parole on merits and rejected it on the premise that the Appellant had been convicted under TADA and, therefore, his application could not be considered in view of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rule, 1958. The Appellant again approached the High Court of Rajasthan by means of another writ petition, which was disposed of by the High Court on June 30, 2015 granting him liberty to file a fresh application before the concerned competent authority for grant of parole in terms of Rules framed by the Government of India in this behalf vide Notification dated November 9, 1955. Armed with this order, the Appellant preferred another parole application with the Government of India. This was, however, rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide orders dated November 10, 2015. It may be noted that the Appellant had simultaneously moved an application for parole before the State of Rajasthan as well. That application also came to be rejected vide order dated November 16, 2015 on the ground that the Union of India had already rejected the parole of the Appellant. For the third time the Appellant approached the High Court seek........