Criminal Misc. No.M-32280 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-32280 of 2008 Date of decision : 08.12.2008 Mangal Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. B.P.K.Bar, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner for house repair was declined by the competent authority on the basis of a report (Annexure P-2) furnished by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur to the effect that he could again commit a crime or abscond, if released on parole. The further averment made is that no copy of the order passed by the competent authority otherwise came to be furnished to the petitioner. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In the course of the report, the District Magistrate has not indicated that petitioner had absconded at any earlier point of time. It is noticed in the report itself that petitioner had not been found to be related to any criminal or smuggler gang. Further averment in the context is that the secret enquiries revealed that his behaviour was bad and in the event of coming on parole, the public peace can be disturbed. and that he is not Criminal Misc. No.M-32280 of 2008 -2- **** to execute any repairs of his house. Needless to say, the owner of the house(petitioner-prisoner in this case) is the best circumstanced to take a decision about whether the house requires repairs or not. 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 District 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 allowed. The impugned order dated 3.11.2008 ( Annexure P/2) 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. December 08, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE