The State Government's decision on premature release under the U. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938, must be based on objective facts and reasons, and not on vague opinions of concerned authorities.

( 1 ) ARBITRARINESS in State action, in consideration and disposal of matters relating to premature release under Section 2 of the U. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938, hereinafter referred to as Probation Act, and the rules, continues unabated. Neither the clear provision of the Act and the rules nor numerous judgements of Honble Supreme Court and of this Court, authoritatively interpreting these provisions and categorically laying down the guidelines seem to pursuade, far less to compel, the authorities to act in accordance with law. The categorically directions of Honble Supreme Court and of this Court that the reports of the concerned authorities, the Probation Officer Superintendent of Police, District Magistrate and the Board as also the order passed by the State Government, must be based on reasons continue to be violated. Perhaps, these authorities are under a misunderstanding that the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court or by this Court is binding only between the parties. They will do well to understand the established legal position that law laid down by Honble Supreme Court is not only binding between the parties but it is equally binding on all the authorities in India. Likewise the law laid down by this Court is binding not only between the parties but on all the authorities amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court (see Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, (1975) 1 Serv LR 153 : (AIR 1975 SC 538), M/s. Devi Das Madho Prasad, Agra v. Commr. of Income-tax, Lucknow, AIR 1967 All 414.

( 2 ) THE present case is another example of such arbitrary action. The petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 302 I. P. C. vide order dated 11-3-1977, in S. T. No. 572 of 1976, by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sitapur and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He had undergone 16 years 4 months and 2 days imprisonment as on 11-3-1994. He moved an application in Form-A for his premature release under Section 2 of the Probation Act. This prayer was refused by order dated 24-8-1989. The petitioner challenged this order by way of writ petition, being writ petition No. 124 (H/c) of 1992. By an order dated 4-8-1993, this writ petition was allowed holding that, since the petitioner has served a sentence of 14 years with remission, he was entitled for release on Form-A. It was further directed that the State Govt. shall decide the Form-A afresh after obtaining proper reports. The Court also noticed that, in their affidavit, filed in the writ petition, the son and the wife of the deceased stated that there is no dispute in between them and they have no objection if the petitioner is prematurely released on Form-A. It was further observed that the report of the Probation Officer shows that there is no dispute and the guardian of the petitioner has very good reputation in the society. The State Govt. has reconsidered this matter but has again rejected Form-A of the petitioner.

( 3 ) ON our direction, the record of the case was produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The Probation Officer has reported thatthe conduct of the petitioner in jail was satisfactory, work and conduct previous to conviction was satisfactory and, according to the neighbours report, the petitioner is likely to lead peaceable life. In the column "probable attitude of prisoner after release", the following report is given :-It is further reported by the Probation Officer that the proposed guardian of the petitioner has good reputation and he will be in a position to control the prisoner. In view of these facts. the Probation Officer has given the following recommendation :the report of the Superintendent Police reads as follows :the report of the District Magistrate reads :on the basis of the report of the Police Superintendent and the District Magistrate, the Probation Board has also opposed premature release. The Board has made following recommendation :

( 4 ) THE State Government considered the re