IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.11883-M of 2007 Date of Decision:- 30.10.2007 Suraj Pal ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.A.S.Trikha, Advocate vs. State of Haryana & others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1)Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner sought his release on parole on the ground that there exists a “sufficient cause” as his house requires urgent repairs. The petitioner's request, however, was turned down by the Authorities vide impugned order dated 26.7.2006 though without giving any cogent reasons. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto the respondents have filed their reply. In para 3 of the written statement, it has been categorically stated that “as per the report of District Magistrate, Mathura, the house does not require repair.” It is also stated that the petitioner is a hardened criminal and it will not be in the public interest to release him on parole. Be that as it may, once the petitioner's plea for release on parole has been found to be factually incorrect, no interference in the impugned order is called for. Dismissed. October 30, 2007 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE