Judgment : Heard. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 3/02/2010 of the Government of Goa, by which the petitioner has been declined parole of 60 days, sought for by him, to take care of his ailing mother. 3. The petitioner is a convict undergoing sentence of 10 years RI plus fine of Rs.1 lac, in default to undergo sentence of 4 years. The petitioner was convicted on 27/11/2003 in Criminal case No.10/2003 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C). The Inspector General of Prisons has filed his affidavit in reply and to said affidavit an annexure is enclosed giving the details of parole granted to the petitioner. 4. From the said annexure it can be seen that the petitioner was granted parole for 28 days from 20/11/2005, 32 days from 6/04/2006, 28 days from 18/12/2006, 28 days from 14/07/2007, 90 days from 5/03/2008, 50 days from 9/07/2009. There is no reason to disbelieve that on all the said occasions, the petitioner was granted parole because the petitioner's mother is suffering from cancer. The petitioner has been on parole every year, for the last five years, on the same ground available under the Rules. 5. Petitioner's last application came to be rejected by order dated 2/03/2010, on the ground that the petitioner's mother is being looked after by the married daughter. 6. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 1/12/2008 in Criminal Writ Petition No.70/2008 in the case of Shri Ramesh C. Singh V/s. State of Goa & Ors., and has submitted that only because the petitioner's mother is being looked after by his sister, petitioner's application for parole on the ground that there is somebody to look after his mother could not be rejected. Counsel further submits that the petitioner's mother at present is on terminal stage. 7. The above case stood on its own facts. It is stated therein that under Rule 324 of the Goa Prison Rules, 2006, it is only in case of serious illness of nearest relatives that the prisoner can be granted parole. It does not lay down any proposition that for the same illness parole is to be granted continuously every year. That could not be the intent behind the Rule. 8. It does not lay down any proposition that for the same illness parole is to be granted continuously every year. That could not be the intent behind the Rule. 8. Be that as it may, it can be seen from the affidavit filed along with annexure that the petitioner was granted parole for the very sickness of his mother, practically every year from the year 2005. The impugned order also shows that at present the petitioner's mother is being looked after by his sister. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order cannot be faulted. This is not a fit case for interference in extra ordinary jurisdiction. Petition, therefore, is dismissed. 10. Liberty to the petitioner to replace original medical certificates with xerox copies.