1. - Having served eleven years of imprisonment, having reformed himself to the point where he was eligible to be transferred to the Open Air Camp at Sanganer, Jaipur, the petitioner moved an application before the concerned authority under the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camps Rules, 1972 ('the Rule', for short). But, the respondents have maintained a studied silence. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC, vide judgment dated 11.10.2000, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.10.1998. As of 31.07.2007, he has undergone an incarceration for a total period of eleven years, two months and four days. During this period of incarceration, the petitioner has been granted his first three paroles under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958. On these three occasions, he has peacefully left the jail and returned to the jail. He was also released on emergency paroles on few occasions. But, even during the emergent paroles, he has maintained peace and tranquillity. He has neither disturbed law and order, nor the public order during his furlough. The petitioner claims to be the senior-most in the sub jail, Ratangarh, Churu. Despite his seniority and despite his transforming himself into a law abiding citizen, the petitioner has not been transferred to the open air camp, though he had applied for the same.

3. Mr. Sumer Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that open air camps were established in order to motivate the prisoners to reform themselves. For, a convicted prisoner is transferred to the open air camp only when he has reformed himself to the point where he would not repeat or commit any criminal offence. According to the learned counsel, the conduct of the petitioner, during his period of incarceration, clearly prove the level of reformation he has undergone. Secondly, although the respondents have claimed that the petitioner is not s transferred to the open air camps ostensibly on the ground that he is unmarried, but the fact is that he is married to Smt. Anju. Therefore, the ineligibility contained in Rule 3(m) of the Rules is not applicable to the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, Mr. B.N. Sandhu, the Additional Government D Advocate, has argued that transfer of a convicted prisoner from a jail to an open air camp is discretionary matter resting with the respondents. Since, the petitioner is unmarried, the respondents were justified in not transferring him. For, according to Rule 3(m) of the Rules, a convicted prisoner who is unmarried is ineligible to be transferred to an open air camp. Secondly, 5 prisoner can only be transferred provided sufficient accommodation is available for them in the open air camp.

5. We have heard both the learned counsels for the parties.

6. Open air camps are half-way house between the total incarceration of a jail and the free movement of an open society. The open air camps o were established as part of the reformative theory of punishment which claims that the purpose of punishment is not merely to lock up the prisoners, but more importantly to reform them and to bring them back into the mainstream of the society as law abiding citizen. In order to encourage the convicted prisoners to reform themselves, the open air camps were 5 established throughout the Rajasthan, Recently in the case of Iswar & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8994/2006 decided on August 23, 2007) , this Court has discussed the necessity of establishing open air camps at the district level in the State. In the said case, this Court had also directed the State Government to create more accommodations within o the existing open air camps in the State. Therefore, it is no argument for the State to claim that there is a