Criminal Misc. No.M-23670 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-23670 of 2008 Date of decision : 22.10.2008 Kuldeep Singh alias Keepa .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.H.S.Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The plea by the petitioner-prisoner for his release on parole was declined by the competent authority. The grievance of the petitioner is that the reasons for declining of the request for grant of parole are inappropriate and vague in character. The competent authority noticed in the impugned order that secret and open enquiry had been made and it was found that “the convict has got bad reputation in the village”. The further apprehension indicated by the competent authority is that the petitioner-prisoner “can abscond and cause breach of peace”, if allowed to be released on parole. Learned counsel invites the attention of this Court to the Panchayatnama (Annexure P/6), whereby a certification had been issued by the Gram Panchayat, Kotli Sajawar, recommending the grant of parole to the petitioner-prisoner and further certifying that his release would not cause any breach of peace. Criminal Misc. No.M-23670 of 2008 -2- **** As would be apparent from a perusal of the impugned order, the competent authority did not notice factual foundational premise upon which the declining of request was based. 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 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. October 22, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE