NAOLEKAR, J. - (1.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner Ashanand was convicted under Sec. 302 of the I. P. C. for life imprisonment and is serving the sentence. THE petitioner moved an application for his release on first regular parole to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as"the Rules of 1958" ). THE application was forwarded to the authorities for their comments. THE Superintendent of Police, Kota City and Social Welfare Officer recommended the parole of the petitioner. However, the Jail Superintendent had given negative report and has opposed the petitioner being released on parole. THE application of the petitioner was considered by the District Parole Advisory Committee. THE Advisory Committee dismissed the petitioner's application for grant of parole on the ground that, although the Superintendent of Police, Kota and Social Welfare Officer has re-commended for grant of parole to the petitioner but the same is opposed by the Superintendent Jail and, therefore the application is dismissed. It is admitted by the State that the petitioner's application for grant of parole was recommended by the Superintendent of Police and the Social Welfare Officer, and also that he has served one fourth of his sentence. THE application was not put before the District Magistrate for the purposes of recommendation because the District Magistrate is the Chairman of District Parole Advisory Committee.
(2.) IT is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for grant of first parole as of right for twenty days, he having under gone one fourth of the sentence whereas it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the petitioner's conduct is not good in jail and, therefore, he is not entitled for parole as claimed as of right. Under Rule 9 of he Rules of 1958, a prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the jail, may be released on first parole for twenty days including days of journey to home and back. By virtue of Rule 14, a person whose ordinary place of residence is outside the State of Rajasthan or who has been convicted by a Court Martial or a court of another State; a person convicted under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; a prisoner who has escaped from the jail or police custody or attempted to escape or a person who has been convicted for offence under Sec. 121 to 140, 216a, 302, 303, 311, 328, 332 364, 386, 387, 388, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 413, 455, 458, 459 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are ordinarily not eligible to be released on parole unless they have undergone one fourth of the sentence including remission and the Superintendent of Jail recommends the case in consultation with the District Magistrate with the special reasons therefore in granting parole to prisoners sentenced under Section 302 IPC, the circumstances of the case under which the murder was committed, such as murder committed for possession of land or over honuor or women of as a result of family feuds shall be kept in view and favourably considered for parole. A conjoint reading of Rule 9 and Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 will make it explicitly clear that a prisoner sentenced under Sec. 302, I. P. C. is ordi-narily not eligible for grant of parole unless and until he undergoes one fourth of his sentences and further the Superintendent of Jail recommends his case in consultation with the District Magistrate with special reasons therefor. Admittedly, the petitioner is convicted under Sec. 302, I. P. C. , and therefore his case falls within Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958. Undergoing one-fourth of the sen-tence including remission ipso facto would not entitle the petitioner for grant of a parole unless and until his case is recommended by the Superintendent of Jail and the Superintendent of Jail while deciding his recommendation consults with the District Magistrate and give special reason for grant of parole. The Parole Committee has rejected the application of the petitioner sim-ply on the ground that the Jail Superintendent has not recommended his case. It is admitted by the State that the District Magistrate was not at all consultant. The reason given was that he was also the Chairman of the Parole Committee. The District Magistrate acts as a District Magistrate in a different capacity and performs different duties whereas as a Chairman of the District Parole. Advisory Committee he acts in a different capacity and for different purposes. Simply because the District Magistrate is the chairman of the District Parole Advisory Committee, he is not debarred from the process of consultation. The Superintendent of Jail in the matter of recommendation, whether the parole is to be granted or not to be granted to a particular Jail inmate who has completed one fourth of his sentence, has to consult him. The recommendation of the Superintendent of Jail unless he has consulted with the District Magistrate has no legal bearing. The Superintendent Jail alone without consultation of the District Magistrate cannot recommend that particular jail inmate should not be released on parole. The consultation mentioned in Rule 14 is effective consultation and not merely a formality. The opinion given by the District Magistrate has to be weighed and given due respect by the Superintendent of Jail before he recommends his opinion whether the convict is to be released on parole or not. In the present case admittedly there was no consultation by the Superintendent of Jail with the District Magistrate before he has sent his re-commendation indicating that the petitioner should not be released on parole. As the necessary requirement has not been complied with by the Superintendent of Jail while recommending the case of the petitioner, the recommendation made by him is set aside. The District Parole Advisory Committee also acted on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Jail which was not in conformity of law, therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner by the District Parole Advisory Committee is also set aside.
(3.) THE Superintendent of Jail is directed to consult the District Magistrate in regard to his recommendation to be made to the District Parole Advisory Committee in the matter of petitioner within fifteen days from the placement of this order and recommend the matter to the District Parole Advisory Committee. After the receipt of such recommendation, the District Parole Advisory Committee shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh on the basis of the recommendations made in the next meeting of District Parole Advisory Committee and will pass necessary order in that regard. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. .;