A. H. JOSHI, J. :-

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

2. Perused the petition and impugned order.

3. The order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dated 11.7.2012, refusing parole is impugned in this petition.

4. The order impugned discloses the reason for refusal of parole which is translated as follows:

"There exists possibility of threat to the breach of peace and danger to the life and security of the members of opposite party."

5. We had directed learned A.P.P. to secure papers.

6. Record is produced before us. It is seen that, earlier the petitioner was set at liberty on account of parole and furlough on four occasions. During these four instances of liberty, any overt act or offence on the part of the petitioner was not reported.

7. It is seen that, during the parole/ furlough, the petitioner had overstayed. Thereafter, he had returned to jail voluntarily, before coercive action such as arrest was initiated against him. Penal action by way of forfeiture of remissions has been taken against the petitioner towards his overstay and late reporting.

8. In the background that on previous four occasions nothing untoward was reported against the petitioner from the adverse party or witnesses, it was the duty of the Divisional Commissioner to apply mind and assess the correctness of adverse police report.

9. It prima facie appeared to us that, the Divisional Commissioner has found himself to be bound by the report made by the police as a gospel truth or has failed to apply mind and has passed order mechanically being totally unmindful to the statutory duty and confidence reposed in him by law. It as well would amount that Commissioner's act is exhibition of total apathy towards the declared policy of the State to permit the prisoners to avail company of family members or cater to the services needed to the family members.

10. Considering flow of similarly worded order and like practice in passing orders by Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad has created an impression in our mind that Divisional Commissioner believes and honestly feels that it is his bounden duty or liability to accept the adverse report made by the police.

11. We had, therefore, noted that the texture of order impugned is such that it amounts to depicting a picture that the report submitted by rude and crude police constable is accepted by the Divisional Commissioner sheerly because he is totally unmindful towards rights of prisoners as well oblivious towards his own position and status high in hierarchy and his duty in law. We have also noted that seriousness as regards rights of prisoner was not kept in mind.

12. Therefore, by order passed on 25.9.2012, this Court gave opportunity to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad to place on record explanation showing remorse, if any, towards the highly objectionable way of working which was exhibited.

13. In response to our order, or in its compliance, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad has filed an affidavit. The affidavit contains following undertaking :-

"6. It is humbly submitted that in future all the precautions will be taken for evaluating each case independently. It is most humbly submitted that for improving the procedure for objectivity decision in parole cases more caution and care will be taken, while deciding such cases. For doing this, I wish to submit that I will develop some modalities and implement the same in future, which are mentioned in the paras below:-

(a) It is submitted that every precaution will be taken in future to pass appropriate order as regards improving the procedure for objective decision in the parole cases. It is submitted that henceforth more caution and care shall be taken while deciding such cases. As submitted earlier, police report shall not be accepted as it is, if it is not supported with any objective material.

(b) Directions issued by Principal Secretary (Home) in the Circular dated 24/8/2012 shall be followed scrupulously.

(c) Clarification