1. Petitioner's son, who is undergoing sentence in SC.97/2014 of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kasaragod, for the offences under Sections 120B and 302 IPC, has sought for parole as per Rule 397 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014. The Superintendent of the Central Prison, Kannur, called for reports of the Sub Inspector of Police concerned and also the District Probation Officer. Even though the District Probation Officer has approved the good conduct of the son of the petitioner on almost all the portions of the report, finally, the Probation Officer has not recommended for parole. The Sub Inspector of Police also has opposed the grant of parole to the son of the petitioner.

2. Even though such reports were obtained, the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Kannur, has been keeping it in his own files without forwarding it to the Director General (Prisons).

3. As per Rule 397(f) of the aforesaid Rules, the authority to grant the first parole is the Director General(Prisons) and the authority to grant subsequent paroles is the Superintendent of the Prison concerned. Therefore, in this particular case, the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Kannur, instead of keeping the application and the reports in his own files, ought to have forwarded the same to the Director General (Prisons).

4. As per Rule 397(h) of the said Rules, three requirements are there for considering an application for parole. The report of the Sub Inspector of Police regarding the matters contained in the said Rule has to be obtained and the report should contain whether the granting of parole would be detrimental to the safety of others or the prisoner, whether it would be detrimental to the law and order situation, whether there is any possibility of the prisoner to abscond, and whether there was any history of any misconduct from him while he was on parole.

5. The next requirement is that the Superintendent of the Prison shall give a recommendation showing the previous conduct of the prisoner and the details regarding the parole so far granted. The third requirement is that, a report has to be obtained from the District Probation Officer regarding the family background, social background, the acceptability of the prisoner by the society, etc.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the report of the Probation Officer regarding the said aspects contained in Rule 397(h) is in favour of the son of the petitioner.

7. Rule 404 of the said Rules deals with appeals. In case of rejection of an application from the prisoner for parole, he has the right of appeal. Even if on extraneous grounds, which are not noted in Rule 397(h), either the Sub Inspector of Police or the Probation Officer has not recommended for parole, it is for the authority for granting parole to decide whether parole has to be granted or not. They are not bound by the mere refusal of recommendation. What has to be considered by them is whether the report conforms to the matters contained in Rule 397(h).

8. When there is a provision for appeal, there should be an order on all applications for parole preferred by the prisoners. It has been pointed out before this Court that unfortunately, such applications are being kept unnecessarily without passing orders.

9. Here is a case wherein the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Kannur, ought to have forwarded the application along with the reports and his recommendation, if any, to the Director General(Prisons). In case of rejection of that application by the Director General(Prisons), there is a right of appeal under Rule 404(iv) to the petitioner, before the government.

10. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has pointed out that such applications are not being forwarded merely by assigning a reason that these applications are not addressed to the Director General(Prisons). Irrespective of the fact as to whether the applications for first parole are addressed to the Director General(Pris