RAJ PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE . Mr. Hooda, appearing for the State of Haryana accepts notice. Copy has been furnished to him. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE request of the petitioner for release on temporary parole was rejected by the respondents on 31.7.1996 (Annexure P -1 to this petition). Following reasons were given in the impugned order for declining the request of the petitioner : "As per the report of District Magistrate, Rohtak on release prisoner Raj Pal son of Rattan Singh on parole opposite party apprehends danger. The elder people of village has given their statement and they said that for release of prisoner there can be an untoward incident. So District Magistrate Rohtak has not recommended the release of prisoner on parole. So keeping in mind this report, prisoner Pala the application of Prisoner for release on parole is declined by Director General Prisons after consideration. 'Prisoner be informed about this decision and Rejection order No. be registered on his history ticket and copy of this rejection order be given to the above said prisoner and this office be informed." The challenge to this order is that such kind of grounds cannot form sustainable basis of an order for rejection of request of the petitioner under the provisions of the 3(1) (d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners' (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 ( for short referred to be as 'the Act'). The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the order passed by the respondents is well reasoned and is based upon information received from the villagers.

(3.) VARIOUS Benches of this Court have repeatedly held that a mere apprehension in the mind of opposite party or the likelihood of an (sic) untoward incident happening on the release of the petitioner, normally termed by the authorities as breach of peace, cannot form valid basis for rejection of request of the detenu for release on temporary parole. The Court may not go into a seriously disputed questions of facts leading to some investigation in its writ jurisdiction. Extraordinarily true is that the Court can also not ignore the fact that concession available to the detenus under the provisions of this Act gives a legitimate right or expectancy to the detenus. The Act has definite object and its provisions are expected to be implemented in their true spirit and meaning. Every effort has to be made to respect the legislation and endeavour must be made to achieve the underlying object of such legislation. The law certainly applies to a restricted class of people, but the object is more socially ( -sic -) reformative in its very substance. The law enacted is primarily to look after the welfare of the detenus and need of their families who are dependent on such detenus ( -sic -) their basic need. Thus when the authorities have to entertain request of the detenus for release on temporary parole, they must have in their mind the basic parameters enacted in the statute itself. To deal with these requests in a routine manner and without proper application of mind would amount to infringement of concession available to the detenus under this Act and would practically would amount to treating the Law with disrespect. It may be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar, JT 1992 (2) S.C. 41, which are as under : "The maxim "Salus Populi suprema lex ", that is "the welfare of the people is the supreme law" adequately enunciates the idea of law. This can be achieved only when justice is administered lawfully, judicially, without fear or favour and without being hampered and thwarted, and this cannot be effective unless respect for it is fostered and maintained." The inaction on the part of the authorities in dealing with such requests or even passing delayed orders which are otherwise not sustainable would normally frustrate the very purpose of this Act. The language of various provisions of the Act indicates that request of the detenu is co -related to the need for a definite purpose and abnormal delay would inevitably result in frustration of the very purpose. For example, keeping in view an application in abeyance when request is for agricultural purposes either for harvesting the crop or for ploughing the fields. This purpose has to be for a very definite period in a year. Further, marriage of a child in the family, application for which is being kept pending even till after the date of marriage, are the common examples noticed by the Courts in various cases. The delayed decision on such request of the detenu may amount to denial of justice. The need for expeditious disposal of a such requests is well sounded not only by the statute; judgment of the Court, but even by the instructions issued by the competent Authority itself (the Government of Haryana) vide its instructions/Circular dated 29.10.1979 - the application for such purpose has to be disposed of within 13 days. Further, in reference to Letter No. 10400/JUG -5/R -9 -2 -PAT -4 dated 19.7.1979, the Government of Haryana vide its Letter No. 4640 -5 JJ 11/22794 dated 18.8.1977 and Letter No. 7103 -5 JJ - 77/31012 dated 13.12.1977, after reconsideration qua - parole to the convicts for the second time and decided 13 days' time for disposal of the applications as under : 1. District Magistrate - 4 days 2. Suptd. Jail - 2 days 3. Inspector General - 7 days (Prisons) In the present case, the petitioner first had to approach the Court for direction to the respondents to deal with his request and after the order of the Court when the petitioner again represented on 11.6.1996, the present impugned order has been passed, which obviously is not sustainable.