JUDGMENT Z.A.Haq, J. - Heard. 2. This writ petition is filed by a convict in prison seeking directions to release him on emergency parole for 45 days. 3. The petitioner, who is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing life imprisonment, had submitted an application to the concerned authority praying for grant of emergency parole as per the amended Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1959"). Till filing of the writ petition, the application filed by the petitioner seeking emergency parole was not decided. 4. Today, the learned A.P.P. has pointed out that the application filed by the petitioner seeking emergency parole is rejected by order dated 6th July 2020. The learned A.P.P. seeks leave to place copy of the order on record. Leave granted. 5. As the petitioner is seeking emergency parole of 45 days as per the amended Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959 and as the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. have shown willingness to make submissions on merits of the matter, we have taken up the petition for hearing. 6. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 7. According to the petitioner, he has undergone angioplasty and in the present situation, because of the pandemic, it is not advisable that he should be kept in prison under the constant threat of infection. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that on the last two occasions when he was released on furlough leave, he had surrendered on due date and therefore, as per Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959, he is entitled for the emergency parole for 45 days. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the request of the petitioner for grant of emergency parole is wrongly rejected on the ground that when the petitioner was released on furlough leave on 1st March 2018, he committed an offence punishable under Section 20(B) and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and was arrested in connection with that crime. It is argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that as per the proviso below sub-clause (ii) of clause (C) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Rules of 1959, the emergency parole of 45 days can be denied only if the prisoner is convicted for the offence punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and not only because the prisoner is facing prosecution under that Act. According to the petitioner, as he is not convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, his claim for grant of emergency parole for 45 days cannot be rejected and the Jail Authorities are under an obligation to release him on emergency parole for 45 days abiding by the mandate of Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959. 8. The learned A.P.P. opposed the claim of the petitioner submitting that Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959 does not confer absolute right on the prisoner to seek emergency parole and discretion is given to the Authority to examine the case of the prisoner who is sentenced to suffer imprisonment above 7 years and to take a conscious decision regarding entitlement or otherwise, of the prisoner for emergency parole. 9. Rule 19(1)(C) of the Rules of 1959 reads as follows: "19. When a prisoner may be released on emergency parole: (1) Emergency Parole - (A) .... (B) .... (C) On declaration of epidemic under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, by State Government: (i) For convicted Prisoners whose maximum punishment is 7 years or less, on their application shall be favourably considered for release on emergency parole by the Superintendent of Prison for a period of 45 days or till such time that the State Government withdraws the Notification issued under the Epidemics Diseases Act, 1897, whichever is earlier. The initial period of 45 days shall stand extended periodically in blocks of 30 days each, till such time that the said Notification is in force (in the event the said Notification is not issued within the first 45 days). The convicted prisoners shall report to the concerned police station within whose jurisdiction they are residing, once in every 30 days. The convicted prisoners shall report to the concerned police station within whose jurisdiction they are residing, once in every 30 days. (ii) For convicted prisoners whose maximum sentence is above 7 years shall on their application be appropriately considered for release on emergency parole by Superintendent of Prison, if the convict has returned to prison on time on last 2 releases (whether on parole or furlough), for the period of 45 days or till such time that the State Government withdraws the Notification issued under the Epidemics Diseases Act, 1897, whichever is earlier. The initial period of 45 days shall stand extended periodically in blocks of 30 days each, till such time that the said Notification is in force (in the event the said Notification is not issued within the first 45 days). The convicted prisoners shall report to the concerned police station within whose jurisdiction they are residing, once in every 30 days: Provided that the aforesaid directions shall not apply to convicted prisoners convicted for serious economic offences or bank scams or offences under Special Acts (other than IPC) like MCOC, PMLA, MPID, NDPS, UAPA etc. (which provide for additional restrictions on grant of bail in addition to those under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and also presently to foreign nationals and prisoners having their place of residence out of the State of Maharashtra." On plain reading of Rule 19(1)(C)(i) and Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959, we find that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959 entitles the petitioner for emergency parole for 45 days and the Authority has no discretion and power to reject his request, cannot be accepted. 10. Rule 19(1)(C)(i) of the Rules of 1959 casts an obligation on the Authority to consider the claim of the prisoner who is convicted and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years or less favourably, as is clear from the phrase "shall be favourably considered for release on emergency parole". 10. Rule 19(1)(C)(i) of the Rules of 1959 casts an obligation on the Authority to consider the claim of the prisoner who is convicted and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years or less favourably, as is clear from the phrase "shall be favourably considered for release on emergency parole". In contradistinction, Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959 does not cast any obligation on the Authority to consider the request of prisoners convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and above, favourably, and it is left to the discretion of the Authority to examine the claim of such prisoner for emergency parole which discretion, of course, has to be exercised by the Authority judiciously after assessing the nature of crime and the background of the prisoner. This is clear from the use of phrase "application be appropriately considered for release on emergency parole" in Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959. Rule 19(1)(C)(i) of the Rules of 1959 shows that the application of the prisoner, who is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years or less, has to be "favourably considered". Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959 lays down that the request of the prisoner convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years or more has to be "appropriately considered". The difference in the phraseology used in sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1959 makes the intention of the legislature clear. If the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 19(1)(C) (ii) of the Rules 1959 also confers absolute right in favour of the prisoner who is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and above, to claim emergency parole for 45 days, then there would not be any distinction between sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (ii) of clause (C) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1959. Hence, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that as of right he is entitled for emergency parole for 45 days, cannot be accepted. 11. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the proviso below sub-clause (ii) of clause (C) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1959 is wrongly invoked, also cannot be accepted. 11. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the proviso below sub-clause (ii) of clause (C) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1959 is wrongly invoked, also cannot be accepted. The proviso below sub-clause (ii) of clause (C) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1959 is independent, and it specifically denies the benefit of the Rule to a prisoner convicted for the offences under the Acts mentioned in the proviso. However, sub-clause (ii) of clause (C) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1959 casts duty on the Authority to consider the claim of the prisoner appropriately, which means that the Authority has the power to reject the claim of the prisoner, if facts of the case warrant such decision. 12. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner was released on furlough leave on 1st March 2018, crime for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was registered against him and he was arrested and then released on bail and was committed to Central Prison, Nagpur. 13. We find that the Authority has rightly examined the relevant material and has not committed any error in rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of emergency parole for 45 days. The Writ Petition is dismissed.