STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. ANIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L. P. A. 302/2000 (State of M. P. v. Anil ; L. P. A. 304/2000 (State of M. P. v. Jagdish; L. P. A. No. 305/2000 (State of M. P. v. Jashir Mohammad; L. P. A. 307/2000 (State of M. P. v. Ramdin ; L. P. A. 309/2000 (State of M. P. v. Harichandra; L. P. A. 338/2000 (State of M. P. v. Premchand Agrawal; L. P. A. 343/2000 (State of M. P. v. Rajendrasingh; L. P. A. 351/2000 (State of M. P. v. Makhan ; L. P. A. 352/ 2000 (State of M. P. v. Rajjusingh; L. P. A. 357/2000 (State of M. P. v. Ramsingh; L. P. A. 358/2000 (State of M. P. v. Sushilkumar Sondhiya ; L. P. A. 359/2000 (State of M. P. v. Ramji ; L. P. A. 450/2000 (State of M. P. v. Mahadeo . This batch of 13 cases is proposed to be disposed of by this order since they are common in nature and the question for consideration is also similar.

(2.) RESPONDENTS filed writ petitions under Art. 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the State Government whereby their cases for release on licence under Rule 6 (6 of the Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules 1964, have been rejected.

(3.) LEARNED single Judge considered the matter and after referring to the provisions of Rule 6 (5 of the Rules, came to the conclusion that in the absence of non -official member, remaining 2 members could not consider the matter, since it was well settled that when a statute requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner for that no other mode is permissible. Proper constitution of the Board was not there, therefore, relying on the Apex Court decision reported in case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230, the order of the State Government, on the recommendation of the Board was vitiated and could not be allowed to stand. In para 6 of the judgment, the learned single Judge said : " State Government is hereby directed to appoint a non -official member to the Board within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Cases of the petitioners for release on licence shall thereafter be placed before the entire Board and the State Govt. , on consideration of the recommendation of the Board, shall pass orders as it may deem proper in accordance with law. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the parties in this regard. " in the penultimate pragraph, the learned single Judge ordered : "in the result, all writ petitions are allowed Orders of the State Government declining to release the petitioners on licence are quashed and the respondents are directed to proceed in the manner as indicated above. In the facts and cicumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. "