IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-24038 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 04, 2008 Narender Singh Bhaati … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present : Mr. Anant Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** S.D. Anand, J. The parole plea of the petitioner – prisoner (for effecting house repair) was declined by the Competent Authority by observing that the petitioner – prisoner is of doubtful character, that there is party faction in the village, that the opposite party is available in the village and that release on parole of the petitioner can lead to breach of peace. 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 apprehension indicated by District Crl. Misc. No. M-24038 of 2008 Magistrate. 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 disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to take a decision afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court in the foregoing paras of this judgment. The exercise shall be concluded within one month from today. 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 04, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2