BALA RAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of writ petition No. 3136/94 (Amolsingh and another Vs. State of M. P. and another.)

(2.) BY this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner -convict has challenged the order dated 10.6.94 of the State Government, whereby after considering the report of the Probation Board dated 6.6.94 the State Government has rejected the petitioner's application under Section 2 of the M. P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1954, Act No. 16 of 1994 (for short the Act) on the ground that the District Magistrate on his determination under Rule 14 of the M. P. Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules, 1964 (for short the 'Rules') informed his opinion to the State Government that the proposed guardian is not fit to act as such having regard to his status, antecedents and degree of control that he may exercise on the prisoner after his release as there is likelihood of the breach of peace because of the group rivalry in the village.

(3.) SHRI V. K. Shukla learned Government Advocate placing reliance on a full Bench decision of this Court in Gangacharan Vs. State of M. P. : 1994 M. P. L. J. 792 Contended that in fact after considering the antecedents of the petitioner and the circumstances, the Probation Board has rejected the application. It was further submitted that Rule 14 casts a duly on the District Magistrate of his determination about the fitness of proposed guardian after taking into consideration the relevant factors enumerated in rule 14(1) of the Rules, and then to inform his opinion to the State Government. No duty is casted upon the District Magistrate to intimate that stage about the in fitness of the guardian to prisoner who has applied for releasing him on license, hence, the order of rejection of the application for releasing the petitioner on license on the ground of unfitness of the guardian is legal and proper.