FAIZAN UDDIN, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is a life convict has challenged the order of the State Government rejecting his application for his release on licence on the recommendation of the Probation Board dated 16-5-1986 and has prayed for his release on bail. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a life convict. He applied for his release on licence under the provisions of section 2 of the M. P. Prisoner's Release on Probation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Tthe Actt) read with Rule 4 of the M. P. Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as Tthe Rulest ). The said application, on the recommendations of the Probation Board dated 16th May, 1986 was rejected by the State Government by order dated 2nd July, 1986 (Annexure R. 1 ). The petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that though the petitioners conduct and his antecedents in the prison have been good and he has been recommended by the Jail authorities for his release yet his application was rejected on flimsy grounds contrary to the provisions of law. The petitioner, therefore, seeks quashing of the said order with a prayer for direction for his release. ( 3 ) THE respondents have contested the petition by stating that the petitioners application for his release on licence has been rejected because the District Magistrate had opposed the same on the ground that the petitioners guardian was unfit to act as guardian and the petitioner was involved in a number of cases under sections 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1977 and 1979 and if he is released there was likelihood of breach of peace in the village as the petitioner is likely to involve himself in those cases in future also. After perusal of the record and relevant provisions of law, we arc unable to persuade ourselves to accept these reasons as valid grounds for rejection of his application. ( 4 ) ON examining the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder we find that there is merit in the grievance ventilated by the prisoner/petitioner through this petition. It may be pointed out that section 2 of the Act relates to the power of the Government to release any person on licence who is confined under a sentence of imprisonment. It may be pointed out that section 2 of the Act relates to the power of the Government to release any person on licence who is confined under a sentence of imprisonment. It provides that in a case where it appears to the Government from the antecedent and conduct of a person confined in a prison under sentence of imprisonment, that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life, if he is released from prison, the Government may, by licence, permit him to be released on condition that he be placed under the supervision or authority of a Government Officer or of a person professing the Same religion as the prisoner or such institution or society as may be recognised by the Government for the purpose, provided such other person, institution or society is willing to take charge of him. Rule 4 provides that except the prisoners specified in Rule 3, any prisoner who has served out one third of his sentence of imprisonment or a total period of five years with remission, whichever is less, may be released by the Government on licence. Then Rule 9 contemplates that it shall be the duty of the guardian to see that the conditions of the licence are fulfilled and he shall look after the conduct and welfare of the licencee and generally act in Loco Parentis. If the licensee's conduct is found to be bad it shall be the duty of the guardian to report it to the District Magistrate and in such a situation the District Magistrate may take steps in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 and Rule 10 for replacement of the guardian or for revocation of licence of release. Rule 14 further provides that in each case the District Magistrate shall determine whether or not the proposed guardian is fit to act as such, having regard to his status, antecedents and the degree of control that he may be able to exercise on the prisoner, and inform the Government of the opinion. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14 provides that the parents or relatives of the prisoner may also be appointed guardians if the District Magistrate is satisfied that they are fit to act as such guardians. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14 provides that the parents or relatives of the prisoner may also be appointed guardians if the District Magistrate is satisfied that they are fit to act as such guardians. ( 5 ) LEARNED Government Advocate on our direction had produced before us the record of the Probation Board, photostat copies of which are retained in the record of this petition along with a copy of impugned order of the State Government as Annexure R. I. We have examined the said record as also the reasons on the basis of which the petitioners application has been rejected. A perusal of the report of the District Magistrate will go to show that he found the proposed guardian to be unfit to act as guardian of the prisoner and that some proceedings under sections 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also initiated against the petitioner sometimes in the years 1977 and 1979 and if he is released on licence there is again possibility of disturbance of peace in the village due to the enmity between the petitioner and members of the family of the deceased who were killed at the hands of the petitioner. Considering this report of the District Magistrate, the Probation Board also declined to recommend the release of the petitioner on licence which was accepted by the Government too and his application was rejected by the State Government by the impugned order. ( 6 ) IT may be pointed out that the brother of the petitioner had come forward to act as the guardian of the petitioner stating that he shall strictly fulfil the conditions of licence for the release of his brother/prisoner duly certified by the Sarpanch of village Panchayat. Learned District Magistrate has assigned no reasons much less good reason in expressing his opinion as to why the brother of the petitioner was not a fit person to act as guardian when sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 specifically provides that parents or relatives of the prisoner may also be appointed guardians. No other person than the parents or relatives can better act as a guardian of prisoner as they will be in a better position to watch the conduct and day to day activities of the released prisoner and if necessary to report the same to the District Magistrate. No other person than the parents or relatives can better act as a guardian of prisoner as they will be in a better position to watch the conduct and day to day activities of the released prisoner and if necessary to report the same to the District Magistrate. This apart in the present case, the Jail Superintendent in his report forwarded to the Probation Board, reported that the antecedent and conduct of the petitioner in the prison has been good and he is likely to abstain from the crime. The petitioner thus fulfilled the requirements of section 2 of the Act also. But neither the Probation Board nor the State Government considered the aforesaid facts and relevant reports regarding the antecedents and conduct of the petitioner which are favourable to him and rejected his application with a cryptic order (Annexure A-i) accepting the recommendation of the Probation Board. In fact the State Government should have passed a speaking order after taking into account the report of the Sarpanch of the village Panchayat as well as the report of the Jail Superintendent and give reasons if the same were not acceptable. It may be pointed out that on the contrary the Probation Board took into consideration irrelevant and stale grounds in recommending that the petitioner was not entitled for release firstly because his guardian was unfit and secondly because proceedings under sections 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against him. Both the aforesaid grounds appear to be wholly misconceived because no reasons are mentioned as to why the guardian was unfit, and if the guardian was unfit, the application could not be rejected for this reason alone as it was the duty of the District Magistrate to ask for another suitable guardian if for any valid reasons the guardian offered by him was found to be unfit. Similarly the proceedings under Sections 107/ 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are said to have been initiated as far back as 1977 and 1979. Similarly the proceedings under Sections 107/ 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are said to have been initiated as far back as 1977 and 1979. Could it be reasonably accepted that if the petitioner was involved in any activity leading to any apprehension for breach of peace more than 10 years before, the same conditions and situation would exist even now after such a long lapse of time of ten years particularly when the Jail Superintendent has reported that his antecedents and conduct in the prison has been good all along 7/8 years of imprisonment. Such a bold statement in the recommendatory order without valid reasons to sustain it would be contrary to the statutory requirement and the same could not be upheld. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of the State Government is quashed. We direct that the petitioners application shall be reconsidered and a fresh order deciding his case within three months be passed in accordance with law. Petition allowed .