JAGDISH AND Vs. M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer made by each of the petitioners is to quash the orders of the State Government whereby prayer made by them for their release on licence under Section 6 (6) of the M. P. Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules 1964, have been rejected.

(2.) FACTS lie in a very narrow compass. Petitioners are convicts and while in incarceration they filed applications for their release on licence under Rule 6 of the M. P. Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules' ). Their cases were considered by the State Probation Board consisting of only two members and on the recommendation of the Board, the State Government declined to release the petitioners on licence. It is the assertion of the petitioners that the State Probation Board which considered the petitioners' case consisted of only two members and in the meeting of the Board held on 31-3-2000, non-official member did not participate. This assertion of the petitioners has not been denied by the respondents. Therefore, one has to proceed on the assumption that the cases of petitioners were considered by the State Probation Board, in the absence of a non-official member.

(3.) MR. D. D. Bhargava appears on behalf of the petitioners. Respondents are represented by Shri Vivekanand Awasthy, Govt. Advocate, Mr. Bhargava, counsel for the petitioners contends that absence of a member in the State Probation Board shall vitiate its opinion and consequently decision taken by the State Government, on consideration of the recommendation of the Board shall ipso facto become illegal. Mr. Awasthy, Govt. Advocate, however, submits that notwithstanding the absence of a member in State Probation Board, same shall not vitiate its recommendation and as such, decision of the State Government, not to release the petitioners on licence, cannot be struck down, on this ground.