(1.) The petitioner applied for furlough leave on 20-12-1989 as his furlough leave was to become due on 5-2-1990. As the petitioner wanted to enjoy furlough leave in the district of Mehsana, I. G., (Prisons) called for the opinion of the District Superintendent of Police, Himatnagar as the petitioner belongs to that district, and that of the District Superintendent of Police, Mehsana as the petitioner wanted to enjoy his furlough leave there. The District Superintendent of Police, Mehsana, in his opinion, has stated that there was no objection if the petitioner is released on furlough leave. However, the I. G., Prisons, rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the opinion of the District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha was against the petitioner's release and that one Manish of Sabarkantha district expressed an apprehension that there would be danger to his life and property if the petitioner is released on furlough. It appears that the said order has been passed by the I. G., Prisons, mechanically and without proper application of mind. The petitioner wants to enjoy his furlough leave in Mehsana district. If the I. G., Prisons, wanted to see that the petitioner does not go to Sabarkantha district, suitable conditions could have been imposed while releasing the petitioner on furlough leave. Without considering this aspect, the I. G., Prisons, has rejected the application. The order passed by the I.G., Prisons is, therefore, set aside and he is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner and dispose of the same within three weeks from to-day. Rule is made absolute accordingly.