Kumar v State [2022] FJHC 605; HBJ01.2021 (21 September 2022)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT LAUTOKA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Judicial Review No: HBJ 01 of 2021

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION

FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER ORDER 53 RULE 3 (2) IN TO REVIEWING THE SENTENCE ORDER IN CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 049 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

RONIL KUMAR

APPLICANT

AND:

THE STATE (O.D.D. P)

RESPONDENT

AND:

THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE

AMICUS CURIE

AND:

FIJI HUMAN RIGHTS

AMICUS CURIE

AND:

THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMICS

AMICUS CURIE

Appearances: Mr. Ronil Kumar (In Person) for the Applicant
Mr. J. Mainavolau for the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 06 June 2022
Date of Ruling: 21 September 2022

R U L I N G

1. Before me is an application filed by the first Respondent to strike out the Motion filed by the Applicant (“Kumar”) by which he seeks the leave of this Court to issue Judicial Review.
   
2. At the time Kumar filed his application seeking leave for Judicial Review, he was a serving inmate. I gather that he has since served his term and has been released.
   
3. Mr. Kant of Counsel for the Respondent has filed substantive submissions.
   
4. I am grateful for his effort and for highlighting various aspects of the Corrections Service Act 2006, the Commissioner’s Orders 2011, and the Correction Service Regulations 2011 in his submissions.
   
5. Essentially, what Kumar is hoping to bring for review in this Court is his sentence which was delivered in Criminal Case No. 049 of 2014.
   
6. Mr. Kant submits that Kumar has not set out in his leave application the particulars of the administrative decision in respect of which he seeks leave for judicial review.
   
7. All that Kumar does in his application is to allude to the sentence which was handed down against him – which includes a parole provision.
   
8. It appears though that Kumar is aggrieved about the decision of the Correction Services in not granting him parole. However, rather than name the Fiji Correction Services, Kumar has named the Director of Public Prosecutions as a Respondent.
   
9. This only adds to the confusion.
   
10. Mr. Kant refers to section 48 of the Correction Services Act which appears to give the Commissioner broad powers in the administration of prisoner release. The Parole Board as per section 49, according to Mr. Kant, has a discretion as and when it sees it fit to make recommendations for parole before the Parole Minister.
    
11. Mr. Kant speculates that – all this means that, Kumar’s case – if it were really so – may not have met the requirements for the Parole Board to take appropriate action.
    
12. Considering that Kumar has since been released from Prison, his application for leave for judicial review is now moot.
    
13. The application seeking leave for Judicial Review is struck out.
    

Anare Tuilevuka

JUDGE

Lautoka

21 September 2022