BARATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Trivedi, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 5-5-1997 regarding rejection of pre-mature release by which the petitioner's pre-mature release was rejected on the ground that the S. S. P. in his report pointed out that the petitioner is (sic) entitled for pre-mature release be cause there is still an enmity between the parties in the village and any untoward incident could take place in the village.

(2.) THE petitioner's Form A was ini tially considered by the State Government vide order dated 27-9- 1995. On 27-9-1995 the petitioner's pre-mature release was rejected by the State on the ground that the Superintendent of Police has opposed his pre- mature release of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner's Form-A was rejected. THE petitioner challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 115 (HC)/96 and this Court vide order dated 13-2-1997 directed the State to reconsider the matter and pass order in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Here, it may be pointed out that it is not disputed that the petitioner is eligible for consideration for pre-mature release and the petitioner's Form-A was considered by the State Government and the same was rejected earlier on the same ground that the S. S. P. has opposed the pre-mature release of the petitioner. On the other hand, it is not disputed that the Probation Officer after enquiry recom mended for pre-mature release of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was released earlier on leave as well as on parole but no untoward incident took place. , It is also not disputed that the petitioner's conduct in the jail was satis factory. After considering all these aspects, this Court by order dated 13-2-1997 directed the State Government to reconsider the petitioner's pre-mature release but it appears that the State Government without even looking into the orders passed by this Court, rejected the Form-A of the petitioner again on the ground that the S. S. P. has opposed the pre-mature release of the petitioner. THE report of the S. S. P. is not based on the materials, whereas, the Probation Officer after spot inspection and enquiry sub mitted his report. THE Probation Officer after considering all these aspects sub milled a report recommending the petitioner's premature release. If, the State Government is not agreeable with the report sub milled by the Probation Of ficer men, the Stale Government is bound to give reasons for on in the impugned order. THE impugned order dated 5-5- 1997 shows that the impugned order is passed only on the ground that the S. S. P. has opposed the pre-mature release of the petitioner. This ground has already been quashed earlier also and the State Government was directed lo reconsider the mailer. THE contention of the petitioner's Counsel finds force with the tact that the State Government is not in terested, in passing the order of pre-mature release of the petitioner in spite of the fact that each and every agency has recom mended for petitioner's pre-mature release and the petitioner is also entitled under law for pre-mature release. THE conduct of the State Government in rejecting the Form-A of the petitioner on the same ground is, in our opinion, not proper. Ordinary, we do not direct for release of the petitioner but looking into the admitted fads that the petitioner is eligible for pre-mature release and further after enquiry, the Probation Officer as well as the Board has recommended for pre- mature release of the petitioner and the same is based on materials on the record. We direct the State Government lo release the petitioner forthwith after necessary formalities in accordance with law unless wanted in any other case.