S.D. Anand, J.@mdashNotice of motion.
2. On the asking of the Court, Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate Gene, ral, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. The petitioner had initially filed Criminal Misc. M - 24326 of 2008 which was disposed of by this Court on 18.9.2008 with a direction to the competent authority to take a decision on the pending praole plea of the petitioner- prisoner within fifteen days from the date of order. The competent authority declined the parole plea of the petitioner on the basis of report from the District Magistrate concerned that "there is apprehension of adverse effect on the statute/arrangement of law and order".
4. Though the grant of parole is not a right vested in a prisoner, it also cannot be said that a parole plea can be declined on the basis of a vague apprehension indicated by the District Magistrate. The principle of transparency validates the view that the authority competent to consider the request of a prisoner under incarceration must announce to the applicant the reasons for disallowance thereof. The impugned order deserves invalidation as it fails the test of being self-contained and transparent.
5. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned order is set aside. The competent authority is directed to pass an order afresh within one month from today in the light of the above observations made by this Court. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority.
6. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary.
