SATYA PRAKASH MALVIYA Vs. STAE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petiion has been moved for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the State Government to release the petitioner on parole. The petitioner is under detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, hereinafter called the 'act'. He made an epplication to the State Government under Section 15 of the Act and prayed that he may be released on parole so that he might participate in the proceedings of the Vidhan Sabha of which he is a Member. His application was rejected by the State Government by its order dated 29-4-1976.

(2.) THE petitioner has contended that unless he is permitted to attend the Assembly Session, he might lose his seat by reason of Clause (4) of Article 90 of the Constitution read with Rule 280 (6) of Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Ki Pra-kriya Tatha Rarya Sanchalan Niyamawali, 1958 which provided for a seat being declared vacant by the Vidhan Sabha on a Member's being absent for a particular period of time. The petitioner contends that unless he is permitted to attend the Vidhan Sabha he will incur the liability for the reason whereof his seat may be declared vacant. This might be a ground on which the State Government may have considered the petitioner's application for temporary release on parole under Section 15 of the Act but cannot entitle the petitioner to get a mandamus. The State Government had jurisdiction to decide the application for release moved by the petitioner and the State Government has passed an order rejecting the prayer.

(3.) THE petitioner contends that there is no application of mind by the State Government in respect of his prayer for release on probation, We are unable to accept this contention as the order passed by the State Government, in fact, shows that there was an application of mind by it. The petitioner pointed out that there is an error of dates in the said order and that indicates that there has been no application of mind by the State Government. His application was dated 13-3-1976. The order says that the prayer in application dated 13-3-76 sent along with the letter of the Superintendent of Jail dated 12-3-1976 is rejected. The contention of the petitioner is that the State Government could not consider a letter of an earlier date than of 13-3-76. The learned Standing Counsel has produced the record and it shows that the Superintendent of Jail had by mistake dated his forwarding letter as 12-3-1976. The mistake, therefore, is not of the State Government, and hence from this it cannot be possible to infer that the State Government had not applied its mind.