(1.) THE petitioner has undergone more than 6 years 7 months and 20 days of actual sentence and it is not disputed that his conduct in the jail has been good throughout. The petitioner applied for six weeks parole for agricultural purposes under clause 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, which was declined by the Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, on, the report Annexure R/1 of the District Magistrate, Jind, to the effect that the Superintendent of Police, find, has not recommended the release on parole of the said convict. Through this writ petition for habeas corpus the petitioner seeks direction that the concerned authorities may be directed to release him on parole for agricultural purposes as it has been withheld on vague report of the District Magistrate regarding apprehension of the breach of public peace.
(2.) IN the return filed by Shri Hawa Singh, Superintendent, Central Jail, Hissar, it is maintained that a person cannot claim the release on parole as a matter of right. He relied upon Amar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1984(1) CLR 547. It is, however, admitted that the conduct of the prisoner remained good throughout in the jail but explained that the case for release on parole for agricultural purposes was declined by the Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana on the ground of apprehension of breach of public peace as reported by the District Magistrate, Jind, vide report Annexure R/1.
(3.) THERE is no force in the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this petition of this writ petition. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court has all the powers to examine whether the concerned authorities are passing the relevant orders strictly under the four corners of the law and rules and regulations. If need be, this Court has the powers to issue a writ of mandamus after coming to the conclusion that the authorities are not observing principles of law or rules and regulations in passing the impugned orders.