Siddharth Mridul, J.:-

1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to the official respondent to release the petitioner on parole in order to enable him to make financial arrangements for the education of his son.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2015 whereby his application for parole on the above ground was rejected by the competent authority for the following reasons:-

“rejected in view of the following:-

1. Para 12.5 of parole/furlough guidelines 2010 which provides that “Parole would ordinarily be not granted except, if in the discretion of the Competant Authority special circumstances exist for grant of parole.? (c) If prisoner is a convict for multiple murders and the convict has committed double murder.

2. The convict is not entitled for parole as per para 11.5 of parole/furlough guidelines, 2010 which provides that “A minimum of six months ought to have elapsed from the date of termination of the previous parole.? The convict has last availed one month parole up to 27.04.2015 by the order of DHC.”

3. Insofar as the ground with regard to six months not having elapsed from the date of termination of previous parole is concerned, the same are infructuous in view of the circumstances that six months have in fact elapsed since the petitioner surrendered before the jail authorities on the expiry of the period of parole granted to him by this Court. Insofar as the other reason attributed for denial of parole to the petitioner is concerned, the Competent Authority has not stated any reason why the discretion purportedly vested in them under the parole guidelines has been exercised in the manner in which it has. The discretion vested in a quasi-judicial authority cannot be exercised in a whimsical and arbitrary manner and any decision in that behalf by a quasi-judicial authority must clearly state the reasons for the exercise of discretion vested in it particularly, when the discretion exercised is to negate the right of a convict to be released on parole periodically.

4. In Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others reported as (2010) 9 SCC 496 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

“47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a Judge or a quasi-ju