S.D.ANAND, J. - (1.) The parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner, a convict in case FIR No. 30 dated 19.2.2001 under Sections 302, 307, 398, 449/34 IPC and lodged in Model Jail, Chandigarh, was declined by the competent authority (respondent No. 2) vide order dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure A-2) by recording that "the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur (Bihar) has not recommended for the release of convict Salabudin s/o Nizamudin on parole on plea that the situation may be worsened if the convict is released on parole."
(2.) THE impugned order does not, at all, indicate what actually persuaded the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, to observe that the situation would worsen due to the release of the petitioner-prisoner on parole. Though a prisoner cannot claim release on parole as of right, there can equally be no dispute with the proposition that the competent authority must record reasons for declining a request. Then only can it be said that the order of the competent authority would be in accord with the principle of transparency and fair play because the cause for declining shall be announced to the petitioner-prisoner. The impugned order fails that test.
(3.) AT the time of arguments before this Court, leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the U.T., Chandigarh resists the plea by arguing that no medical certification in support of the averment (to the effect that the mother of the petitioner is aged 85 years and is ailing) had been filed by the petitioner-prisoner.;