- (1.) D. K. Trivedi, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the State Government rejecting the petitioner's premature release on the basis of Form-a
(2.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner has already served out a sen tence necessary for considering him for premature release. The petitioner's Form-A was submitted on which the Jail Authorities submitted a favourable report saying that the petitioner's conduct inside the Jail was found good. The concerned District Magistrate also pointed out that the petitioner would lead a peaceful life, if he is released on licence. He also stated that the guardian indicated by the petitioner is a responsible person. The Probation Officer also recommended the premature release of the petitioner by giving a detailed report. The Superinten dent of Police concerned in his report ad mits that the petitioner had not com mitted any offence when he was released on parole. IT is also not disputed that hedid not disturb Law and Order and public peace but in reply to Column No. 3, it has been pointed out that as the petitioner has committed a heinous crime, therefore, he could again commit any offence, if he is released. In Column No. 3 itself the fact is mentioned that if, the reply is in negative, then specific reasons be given for the same. Admittedly, no specific reason was given by the concerned Superintendent of Police for giving this reply that the petitioner could commit an offence if, he is released on licence. He did not recommend the premature release of the petitioner without giving any reasons. All these reports were placed before the Probation Board but from the perusal of the report of the Probation Board it is evident that the Probation Board has considered the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police alone and thereafter, the Board has not recommended the premature release of the petitioner. Thereafter, the State Government by the impugned order dated 16-10-96 rejected the Form-A of the petitioner on the ground that the dispute has not yet ceased and as there is likelihood of repetition of the crime, therefore, the petitioner's prayer for premature release is rejected. As pointed out above, the Proba tion Board while sending these recom mendations did not consider the reports submitted by the concerned District Magistrate, Jail Authorities as well as Probation Officer, therefore, in our opinion, the recommendation submitted by the Probation Board is not free from doubt and the same cannot be said to be a valid order. It is the duty of the Probation Board to consider the reports submitted by different authorities and after considering all these reports, the Board should submit its recommendation giving reasons for ac cepting or not accepting the reports sub mitted by the authorities. In the instant case, it is evident that the Probation Board submitted its recommendations after considering the report submitted by the Su perintendent of Police only, therefore, in our opinion, the same is not valid one. Similarly, the State Government rejected the Form-A of the petitioner only on the basis of the fact that further untoward incident can be repeated by the petitioner without having cogent reasons, therefore, in our opinion the same cannot be sus tained. It is the duty of the State Govern ment to consider all the reports/recom mendations and thereafter, pass an order giving reasons regarding accepting or not accepting the reports/recommendations. In view of the facts stated above, the impugned order dated 16-10-1996 is hereby quashed and the State Govern ment is directed to reconsider the Form-A of the petitioner in accordance with law. The State Government shall be free to obtain fresh reports if it thinks proper. However, it is expected that the State Government will dispose of the Form-A of the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(3.) WITH these observations as men tioned above, the present writ petition is hereby, allowed. Petition allowed. .;