A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a detenu detained under the provisions of Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act as per order dated 7/08/1986 It is an undisputed position that the petitioner was ordered to be externed from Ahmedabad and its contiguous districts under the provisions of sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act and that this externment order is still in operation. The petitioner prays that he be released on parole for a period of fifteen days. Parole is prayed on the ground that he wishes to attend the marriage of his younger sister which is to be held on 27-12-1986. ( 2 ) IT may be noted that parole jurisdiction is evolved by this Court having regard to the pains and sufferings of persons undergoing prolonged period of incarceration on account of long terms of imprisonment. Ordinarily parole is not meant for persons detained under the provisions of preventive detention laws. By the very nature of detention under the preventive detention laws a detenu will be kept in custody for a period of one year or maximum for a period of two years. By ordinary standards the period of two years cannot be considered to be such a prolonged incarceration during which parole can be legitimately claimed. The basic object of parole and furlough is reformative and corrective. Parole envisages that the prisoners should not be completely secluded from outside life. At certain reasonable intervals prisoners should be given an opportunity to mix with their family members and the society so that dehumanizing effect of secluded life is partially removed. This is essentially a reformative provision made under Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 in respect of the convicted prisoners. This concept of parole and furlough leave cannot be introduced and applied to the detenus under the preventive detention laws. The very object of detention laws is to see that the persons detained under the preventive detention laws are kept away from the society so that they may not indulge in certain type of prejudicial activities. Object is to prevent not to punish. Therefore if such persons were to get the benefits of parole the very object of detention will be frustrated. Object is to prevent not to punish. Therefore if such persons were to get the benefits of parole the very object of detention will be frustrated. ( 3 ) IN above view of the matter we are of the opinion that it would be proper to leave such matters with the executive authorities who are empowered under the relevant provisions of detention laws (in this case sec. 15 of Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act) to release (or not to release) the detenu temporarily. In any case it would be highly improper and unreasonable for a Court exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in miscellaneous jail matters to release such detenu on parole. ( 4 ) IN the instant case the Government authorities have considered the case of the petitioner and has rejected the application for temporary release. We see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Government. 5 At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner requests that she be permitted to withdraw the petition. Permission granted. Rejected as withdrawn. Petition withdrawn. .