- (1.) JAGAT Narain has preferred this writ petition against the or der of the State Government refusing the release of the petitoner on licence under the provisions of the U. P. Prisoners' on Probation Act. 1938.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Form A of the peti tioner has been rejected on the ground that the proposed guardian was not a suitable person for the purpose. We have also heard the learned Additional Government Advocate. A perusal of the order of the State Government shows that the release of the petitioner on licence was refused on the above ground and secondly, on the ground that when the petitioner was re leased on parole, he over-stayed and was awarded punishment. So far as the second ground is con cerned, it is conceded by the learned Ad ditional Government Advocate that the over-stay of the petitioner was in the year 1984 and even thereafter the petitioner was released on parole and there is no re port adverse regarding the conduct of the petitioner, We are of the view that the over-stay of the petitioner is an old story as it happened in the year 1984 for which the petitioner has already been awarded pun ishment. Much water has flown since then and the petitioner was subsequently re leased on parole more than once. Nothing has been brought to our notice to indicate that he misused his parole after 1984. The other ground on which the Form A of the petitioner has been rejected is that the proposed guardian was not a proper person. The record shows that Manoj Kumar, the younger brother of the petitioner was mentioned as guardian. The District Magistrate has not given any rea son as to why he considered that Manoj Kumar was not a sutiable person to be appointed as guardian. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even the Probation Officer or some other Government Officer could have been appointed as guardian by virtue of Notification No. 5127/pro/22- 219/84, dated May 18, 1987. It does appear that the District Magistrate has not given any reason as to why he thought that Manoj Kumar was not a proper person to be ap pointed as guardian of the petitioner.
(3.) IN view of what has been discussed above, the order of the State Government dated 8-7-1993 rejecting Form A of the petitoner is quashed. The State Govern ment shall reconsider the release of the petitioner on licence and shall dispose of the matter by a speaking order within four months from the date when a certified copy of the order is placed before the con cerned authorities. With the above directions, this writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed .;