JUDGMENT

Sanjay K Agrawal, J. - This is a classic case where a convicted prisoner despite having been granted parole by the leave under Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules of 1989') and having furnished bail bonds for release on probation, has not been released by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector wholly on untenable ground reviewing the order granting parole without having any express provision under the Rules of 1989 which arises on the following facts: -

2. The petitioner is a convicted prisoner suffering his sentence in the Central Jail, Bilaspur. His application under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1989 was considered by the learned releasing authority who is the District Magistrate / Collector and it was accordingly, granted on 20-7-2018 and in compliance of that order, the petitioner also furnished bail bonds on 5- 10-2018 and when the case was again placed before the District Magistrate for signing the order of release, the Collector declined to release the petitioner on parole holding that on account of elections it is not possible to release him. Not only this, when the elections of 2018 were over, again the matter was placed for consideration before the District Magistrate in which he directed his authorities to discuss the matter and on discussion, he directed for seeking fresh report of the Superintendent of Police and this time, the Superintendent of Police opined that the petitioner should not be released on parole and agreeing with the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner and against that order, this writ petition has been preferred.

3. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that it is a case where the learned District Magistrate after granting release of the petitioner on parole finding him eligible for leave in accordance with the Rules of 1989, unnecessarily, on the pretext of elections, declined to release him on parole which amounts to reviewing of the order dated 20-7-2018 and which could not been exercised as there is no power of review conferred to the District Magistrate under the Rules of 1989 to review its own order. It is well settled law that unless the power of review is conferred to the statutory authority, no such power of review can be exercised. Even after the completion of elections, the petitioner was not released on parole and fresh police report was called and after calling the report, his application was rejected which is clearly unsustainable in law.

4. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State / respondents, would submit that though the District Magistrate considered the application of the petitioner and directed him, to be released on parole, but before he could be released on parole, elections were declared and it was not found desirable in public interest to release him on parole and consequently, the District Magistrate directed not to release him on parole and after conclusion of elections, his application was again reconsidered and after obtaining report from the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner was not found eligible to be released on parole and as such no exception can be taken to the order granting his application for grant of parole.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

6. The Rules of 1989 have been enacted in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 31 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 by the State Government. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1989 provides Conditions of Leave, Rule 4-A prescribes Eligibility for Leave and Duration of general leave is provided in Rule 4-C. Under Rule 6(a), sanctioning authority for first leave is the District Magistrate. It provides that if the District Magistrate, after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary, is satisfied that the request