DINESHWAR CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a classic case where a convicted prisoner despite having been granted parole by the leave under Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules of 1989') and having furnished bail bonds for release on probation, has not been released by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector wholly on untenable ground reviewing the order granting parole without having any express provision under the Rules of 1989 which arises on the following facts: -

(2.) The petitioner is a convicted prisoner suffering his sentence in the Central Jail, Bilaspur. His application under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1989 was considered by the learned releasing authority who is the District Magistrate / Collector and it was accordingly, granted on 20-7-2018 and in compliance of that order, the petitioner also furnished bail bonds on 5- 10-2018 and when the case was again placed before the District Magistrate for signing the order of release, the Collector declined to release the petitioner on parole holding that on account of elections it is not possible to release him. Not only this, when the elections of 2018 were over, again the matter was placed for consideration before the District Magistrate in which he directed his authorities to discuss the matter and on discussion, he directed for seeking fresh report of the Superintendent of Police and this time, the Superintendent of Police opined that the petitioner should not be released on parole and agreeing with the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner and against that order, this writ petition has been preferred.

(3.) Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that it is a case where the learned District Magistrate after granting release of the petitioner on parole finding him eligible for leave in accordance with the Rules of 1989, unnecessarily, on the pretext of elections, declined to release him on parole which amounts to reviewing of the order dated 20-7-2018 and which could not been exercised as there is no power of review conferred to the District Magistrate under the Rules of 1989 to review its own order. It is well settled law that unless the power of review is conferred to the statutory authority, no such power of review can be exercised. Even after the completion of elections, the petitioner was not released on parole and fresh police report was called and after calling the report, his application was rejected which is clearly unsustainable in law.