IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-25627 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 03, 2008 Sachinda Nand Thakur. … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present : Mr. H.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** S.D. Anand, J. The Competent Authority declined the parole plea of the petitioner – prisoner by noticing that the District Magistrate concerned, “did not recommend for the release of the convict on parole”. Besides it, it also noticed that the petitioner – prisoner “does not fulfill the conditions contained in the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.” Crl. Misc. No. M-25627 of 2008 Insofar as the aspect of eligibility is concerned, it is no longer in controversy. Insofar as the other count on the basis whereof the parole plea was declined, it requires pertinent notice that the Competent Authority did not give any indication about the nature of the facts on the basis whereof the parole had not been recommended by the District Magistrate concerned. 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 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. In case the plea of the petitioner – prisoner find favour with the Competent Authority, it may consider the admissibility of obtaining two legal sureties to the satisfaction of the 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-25627 of 2008 Authority Competent in the relevant behalf. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the Competent Authority. Disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. November 03, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3