V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved for not releasing him on parole by the State Government, 1st respondent herein. He filed the writ petition seeking a direction to release him on parole for 90 days.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was the 3rd accused in S. C. No. 42/79 on the file of the 1st Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. He was tried for the offences u/ss. 302 read with 149, IPC, along with other accused. He was acquitted by the Sessions Court by its judgment dt. 10-8-1979. However, on appeal the High Court, in Crl. Appeal No. 1244/79, convicted and sentenced him for life imprisonment. The said conviction and sentence have become final and the petitioner has been undergoing imprisonment in Chenchalaguda Central Prison, Hyderabad.

( 3 ) THE petitioner states that his mother, aged 90 years, is seriously ill and virtually on death bed. He is the only earning member being the father of three school going children. To provide medical facility to his mother and to solve financial problems, the petitioner requested to be released on parole. He made an application on 20-5-1997 to the State Government for release on parole. However, it was rejected by an order dt. 7-6-97. Subsequently also several applications were made to the 1st respondent for release on bail, but no action has been taken. He was earlier released on parole for some time and he surrendered to the Government without any complaint. It is his further grievance that though his co-convict has been released on parole from 12-8-96, his case was not favourably considered. For the above reasons the petitioner prayed for his release on parole for a period of 90 days.

( 4 ) THE true extract of the order dt. 7-6-97 rejecting parole runs as follows :"with reference to the above reference cited the Government after careful examination of the representation of Sri M. Rajender, Prisoner No. 7319 has rejected of his application for the release. Hence same was informed to the application. "

( 5 ) IT is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the Government rejected the application for parole without giving reasons. Thus the non-application of mind is writ large on the face of the order. As per the Suspension of Sentence on Parole Rules 1981 (for short, the Rules ), the Government was required to consider the grounds on which the parole was sought and dispose of the application. Since no reasons were given, the order is vitiated as offending Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the Rules.

( 6 ) THE Government filed counter-affidavit stating that the application dt. 20-5-97 has been examined and after careful examination the same was rejected as the Deputy Commissioner of Police, D. D. Hyderabad has reported that it was dangerous to the life of the petitioner to come out on parole and it would also cause law and order problem and as such release of the convict (petitioner) was not advised. His subsequent applications for parole were also rejected in view of the adverse report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, D. D. Hyderabad.

( 7 ) IT is true that the Government has not given elaborate reasons in its order dt. 7-6-1997. Law is well settled that the requirement to record reasons by an administrative authority exercising quasi judicial functions, can be regarded as one of the principle of natural justice. Such requirement serves a salutory purpose in excluding arbitrary actions and assuring fairness in the decision making, vide the decision in S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 : (1990 Cri LJ 2148 ). The proposition which cannot also be disputed is, when the order is silent as to the reasons for its conclusions it is permissible for the Courts to call for the records and look into them to see whether such reasons can be discernable. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also has looked into the records. From a perusal of the record it is evident that considering the representation made by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document