IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-11553 of 2008 Date of decision : 6.11.2008 Narinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab . S. D. ANAND, J. It is apparent from the impugned order Annexure P/1 that the competent authority declined the parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner by observing that “the convict had habitual to commit the jail offence on the consideration of the position told by you the case of convict for parole of 6 weeks is rejected.” 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 averments 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. November 06, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE