Procedural errors in rejecting leave under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules vitiate the authority's decision-making process.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to release son of the petitioner on leave under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 and to quash the order dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure P / 2) passed by Additional District Magistrate, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) as well as order dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P / 2) passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur (C.G.) by which application of the son of the petitioner for grant of leave has been rejected.

2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that son of the petitioner was languishing in jail from 18.10.2013 to 29.01.2015 and from 11.05.2018 onwards and in total he has served more than 5 years of jail sentence on account of his involvement in commission of offence punishable under S.147, S.148, S.302/149, 325/149 of I.P.C., wherein he was sentenced for lifetime.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that now son of the petitioner has already suffered jail sentence more than 5 years and as per the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989 (for short "the Rules, 1989") framed by State of Chhattisgarh, he is entitled for grant of leave. Hence, it is prayed that on above factual matrix, he may be released on parole.

4. Learned State counsel has filed reply on 21.06.2021 enclosing copy of letter dated 23.11.2020 of In - charge of Police Station - Telibandha, District - Raipur, wherein it has been mentioned that there is dispute between the parties due the incident occurred, therefore, he has submitted report for not releasing the petitioner on parole. He would further submit that the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Raipur as well as Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur are legal and justified, present petition is without merit and substance, hence, it is prayed that this writ petition may kindly be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records annexed with the petition with utmost satisfaction.

6. This Court in case of Ratan Das v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, WPCR No. 256 of 2021 (decided on 30.07.2021) (Reported in AIROnline 2021 CHH 622), considering the provisions of the Prisoners Act, 1900 (for short "the Act, 1900"), the Rules, 1989, relied upon judgments passed by Hon'be the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and another v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar , AIR 2006 SC 2471 ; Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited v. Union of India and others (2019) 5 SCC 480 : (AIROnline 2019 SC 305) and Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan and others , AIR 2017 SC 4986 , as well as judgment passed by the Co - ordinate Bench of this Court, held in paras 16 and 17, which are extracted below: -
"16. From the above discussion, considering the Rules, 1989 and also the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in above mentioned judgments, Asfaq (Supra), it is clear that the authority while allowing or rejecting the application of the prisoner for leave on parole, has to consider the parameterslaid down in the Rules, 1989. From the facts of the present writ petition, it is clear that there is no such consideration made, therefore, the decision making process of the authority suffers from non - application of mind and deviation from the standard procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1989, as such, order dated 30.12.2020 rejecting the parole of the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
17. These rules clearly stipulate that the District Magistrate while considering the application for grant of parole, should consider the conditions as enumerated in R.4 and R.6 of the Rules, 1989 a