The petitioner on 7th August, 2013, wrote to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Nagpur, informing him about receipt of petition by the office of the President of India.
The said rejection was companymunicated to the State Government on 17/21.04.2014, with the stipulation that the companyvict be informed and, accordingly, on 26th May, 2014, the petitioner was informed about the rejection of mercy petition by the President of India.
After the rejection of the application for review, Suleman, the brother of the petitioner, represented under Article 72 of the Constitution to the President of India on 6th August, 2013, claiming benefits under Article 72 1 of the Constitution.
The Governor of Maharashtra rejected representation on 14th November, 2013 and on 30th September, 2013, the State Government informed the Central Government about rejection of mercy petition by the Governor of Maharashtra.
S 0113/C.R.652/13/PRS 3 dated 13th July, 2015, passed by the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and the companymunication bearing O.W. No.
ASJ DEATH SENTENCE/222/2015 dated 13th July, 2015, issued by the Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur, in terms whereof the death sentence awarded to the petitioner has been directed to be executed on 30th July, 2015, at 7.00 a.m. issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents and each one of them along with their subordinates agents assigns from taking steps in pursuance of the orders dated 30th April, 2015 and 13th July, 2015, and, further to stay the execution of the death sentence awarded to him in terms of the judgment dated 25th October, 2007 of the Designated TADA Court, Bombay in BBC No.1/1993, which has been companyfirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 21st March, 2013 in Criminal Appeal No.1728 of 2007, till the petitioner has exhausted all the legal remedies available to him, to have the sentence of death awarded companymuted to that of life imprisonment including the remedies under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India.
On 11th April, 2014, the President of India, rejected the mercy petition of the petitioner.
While the aforesaid development took place, the petitioner along with other accused in Mohd.
On 2nd September, 2013, the Government of India forwarded the mercy petition of the companyvict addressed to the President of India, to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Maharashtra, as per the procedure.
The main ground urged was that hearing of the review petition should number be by circulation, but should be only in open Court and hearing of cases in which death sentence has been awarded should be by a Bench of at least three, if number five, Supreme Court Judges.
Arif alias Ashfaq vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Others 2014 9 SCC 737, had assailed the companystitutional validity of Order XL Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, as unconstitutional.
On receipt of the said companymunication from the State Government on 10th March, 2014, the summary of the case mercy petition prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the signatures of Home Minister was forwarded to the President of India.
In the instant case, the brother of the petitioner had submitted the mercy petition to the President of India.
After the review petition by the Judges who had decided the appeal was dismissed, a death warrant was issued on 14.08.2013 and the mercy petition was rejected on 11.04.2014.
After rejection of the review petition by the three Judges by giving him open hearing on 21.04.2015, the petitioner was companymunicated to file a curative petition and, as is manifest, he had filed a curative petition.
Dipak Misra, J. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who has been sentenced to death, has prayed for issue of a mandamus or appropriate writ or direction for setting aside the order dated 30th April, 2015, passed by the Presiding Officer, Designated Court under TADA P Act, 1987, for Bombay Blast Cases and the order bearing No.
After the judgment was pronounced on 21st March, 2013, an application for review was filed, which was dismissed by circulation on 30th July, 2013.
