IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-30947 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 26, 2008 Abdul Guffar … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present : Mr. A.S. Trikha, , Advocate, for the petitioner. *** S.D. Anand, J. Crl. Misc. Nos. 54448 & 54449 of 2008 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-30947 of 2008 The parole plea of the petitioner – prisoner was declined by the Competent Authority on the basis of a report furnished by the District Magistrate concerned that there was an apprehension of breach of peace in the village, in case the petitioner – prisoner is released on parole. Notice of motion. Crl. Misc. No. M-30947 of 2008 On the asking of Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. 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 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 seven days 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 26, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-30947 of 2008 3