9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases. No such eventuality has been mentioned neither in the reply nor in the arguments raised by learned State counsel. Admittedly, the administrative decision is subject to judicial review in exercise of supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Although this Court is not to act as an Appellate Court but the administrative action or even a non-statutory administrative action may relate to judicial review. The violation of constitutional provisions or any statutory provision would invalidate the administrative decision. However, every administrative decision must be reasonable. The principle of reasonableness known as 'Wednesbury principle' , which is having three elements i.e. the authority should take all relevant facts into consideration; it should exclude or irrelevant facts from consideration; and the decision should neither be perverse nor irrational. 'Perverse' means improper or contradictory but in the context of administrative decision, it symbolizes a decision not supported by any evidence and 'irrational' means an absurd or illogical decision. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ather and his immediate treatment is required. Learned counsel also submits that there is no apprehension of breach of peace, in case, the petitioner is released on parole. 5. In response to notice of motion, reply has been filed by the respondents which is taken on record. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner cannot claim parole as a matter of right as it is the only concession which is given for good conduct and on fulfilling certain conditions as provided in the Act. He further submits that the petitioner is involved in a serious case of NDPS and he was awarded sentence of ten years with a fine of ` one lac. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner falls under the category of hardcore criminal and he has undergone only 14 months of actual sentence after conviction. The petitioner has completed 03 years 01 month and 23 days as on 05.03.2018 and is not eligible for parole as five years of imprisonment is required as per sub-section 2 of Section 5A of the Parole Act. 7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the order of rejection and other documents available on the file. 8. The facts of the case relating to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se) Amendment Act, 2012, which is reproduced as under:- 2. (aa) 'hardcore prisoner' means a person, who- (i) has been convicted of dacoity, robbery, kidnapping for ransom, murder with rape, serial killing, contract killing, murder or attempt to murder for ransom or extortion, causing grievous hurt, death or waging or attempting to wage war against Government of India, buying or selling minor for purposes of prostitution or rape with a woman below sixteen years of age or such other offence as the State Government may, by notification, specify; or; (ii) during any continuous period of five years has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment twice or more for commission of one or more of offences mentioned in chapter XII or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, except the offences covered under clause (i) above, committed on different occasions not constituting part of same transaction and as a result of such convictions has undergone imprisonment at least for a period of twelve months: Provided that the period of five years shall be counted backwards from the date of second conviction and while counting the period of five years, the period of actual imprisonment or detention shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anything contained in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, no person is entitled to be released under the Act, if on the report of the District Magistrate, where consultation with him is necessary, the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. Meaning thereby, the release of a prisoner on parole can be declined in case his release on parole is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. The recommendation made by the concerned authority for not releasing the petitioner on parole is merely that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment and is involved in many cases. No such eventuality has been mentioned neither in the reply nor in the arguments raised by learned State counsel. The observations made in case CRM-M No. 34013 of 2009 titled as Varun @ Gullu v. State of Haryana and others decided on 26.04.2010 are relevant, which are as under:- No doubt parole or furlough is a concession granted to a prisoner, but grant of such concession is regulated by a statute and on fulfillment of conditions prescribed therein, a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
