- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuing necessary direction to respondents to release him on permanent parole.
(2.) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for petitioner is that it is a case of permanent parole, therefore, even if there was adverse report by District Authorities, the same could not have been the ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that orders dated 18th August, 2011 and 21st September, 2012 may be quashed and respondents may be directed to release the petitioner on permanent parole.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We have also examined the orders impugned dated 18th August, 2011 (Annex. 2) and 21st September, 2012 (Annex. 3), whereby application of petitioner for grant of permanent parole was rejected. It appears from both the orders that District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police and Social Welfare Department, looking to conduct of petitioner did not recommend the case of petitioner for grant of permanent parole, meaning thereby, all gave adverse report against petitioner to grant him permanent parole; from these orders, it appears that case of petitioner was considered by State Parole Advisory Committee and by a reasoned order, the application of the petitioner has been rejected. We find no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. In view of above, we find no force in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.;