IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-27047 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 20, 2008 Lakhwinder Singh …. Petitioner Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Ms. Supriya Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. **** S.D. Anand, J. The parole plea raised by the petitioner – prisoner was declined by the Competent Authority by noticing that he, on release, could indulge terrorist activity during the parole period. There is nothing in the order to indicate that the petitioner – prisoner has a criminal history. There is nothing in the order to indicate whether he has been convicted in a case of terrorist activity or whether any prosecution on a charge of that category is pending against him. Crl. Misc. No. M-27047 of 2008 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 deserved 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 pass an order afresh, in the light of the facts noticed above, within two months from today. The release shall, of course, be subject to the furnishing of adequate surety etc. by the petitioner – prisoner. It will be for the counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, to communicate the order to the Competent Authority. Copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the respondents under the signatures of the Court Secretary. November 20, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2