IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-11553 of 2008
Date of decision : 6.11.2008
Narinder Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: None for the petitioner.
Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab .
S. D. ANAND, J.
It is apparent from the impugned order Annexure P/1 that
the competent authority declined the parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner
by observing that “the convict had habitual to commit the jail offence on the
consideration of the position told by you the case of convict for parole of 6
weeks is rejected.”
Though the grant of parole is not a right vested in a prisoner,
it also cannot be said that a parole plea can be declined on the basis of a
vague averments by the competent authority. The principle of
transparency validates the view that the authority competent to consider
the request of a prisoner under incarceration must announce to the
applicant the reasons for disallowance thereof. The impugned order
deserves invalidation as it fails the test of being self-contained and
transparent.
The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned
order is set aside. The competent authority is directed to pass an order
afresh within one month from today in the light of the above observations
made by this Court. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the
order to the competent authority.
Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under
the signatures of the Court Secretary.
November 06, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE