A. H. JOSHI, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

2. This is a letter petition. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, refusing to grant parole.

3. The request for parole has been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. While rejecting the prayer for parole, the Divisional Commissioner has made observations that :-

(a) The surety appears to be incompetent to control the prisoner; and

(b) The police have objected to release the petitioner based on apprehension that the prisoner may commit serious crime, and hence, the petitioner's case is not fit for release on parole.

4. Perusal of the petition discloses that petitioner was earlier released on parole and/or furlough totally on ten instances.

5. We had seen the opinion expressed by police and accepted and acted upon by Divisional Commissioner as regards the prisoner is contradicted by previous history of the petitioner.

6. On seeking said contradiction, we were satisfied that the reasons recorded in the order of rejection were wholly unjustified. Therefore, we had passed order on 26.9.2012 and recorded that :-

"4] We would like to know from the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, whether the fact that the petitioner has already availed furlough or parole for particular number of occasions was within his knowledge and if it be the fact, he should state the circumstances in which he had endorsed the view expressed by the Police that the petitioner / prisoner is likely to commit offence and his surety is not likely to exert any control upon him.

5] It is seen that adverse reports are sent deliberately, mechanically and with total apathy towards the rights of prisoners, propriety and sense of responsibility and duty. The reports sent by Police with all these glaring defects and are acted upon without testing worthiness thereof. The background and earlier record of the prisoner is not adverted to by the Divisional Commissioner.

6] The order of refusal of parole though is under the signature of the officer of the rank of Divisional Commissioner, who is very high ranking officer in the official hierarchy enjoys the position akin to that of senior amongst Secretaries to the Government, it amounts replication of opinion expressed by a Police Constable, as if being governed by the dictate of the Police Constable. It thus turns out to be conversion of a Police Constable's report into an order by such a highly placed officer. It reveals that the Divisional Commissioner considers that he is either incapable or unable to take different view.

7] We are unable to get persuaded and convinced as to the reasons due to which the statutory power and authority vested in the officers of such a high rank, is subrogated to the maliciously, or capriciously rendered opinion of a Police Constable.

8] It prima facie appears that officers holding such high rank show and behave with total lack of sensitivity towards the rights of the prisoners.

9] It is seen that the Divisional Commissioner has forgotten that giving reasonable liberty to the prisoners, even those convicted of serious offences is a policy of the State. Any officer ought not act in such manner that the policy of the State and philosophy underlying the objective of release of prisoners should be defeated and callously disrespected.

10] In this background and knowing fully well that the reasons cannot be supplanted or later on brought in, to support any order, we want to know the mindset of the officer leading to such orders.

11] We have seen, rather we see everyday, that the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioners are not merely unmindful but are showing callous attitude towards human rights."

7. Therefore, by order dated 20.9.2012, we had directed the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad to place on record the modalities as to how he would avoid:-

(a) recurrence of such unmindful passing of order;

(b) Acting blindly upon the false and absurd reports from police w