JUDGMENT 1. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of first regular parole. 2. The petitioners are at present serving life sentence in the Central Jail, Kota. 3. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners applied for regular parole but the same was refused to them by the Parole Advisory Board without assigning any reasons. There was no complaint about their conduct when they were in jail or when they were out, after the order of acquittal passed by the High Court. The conduct of petitioners had always remained good in jail even after the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Social Welfare Department as well as jail authorities submitted their report in favour of the petitioners but the parole was refused only on the ground that the report of Superintendent of Police was against the release of petitioners on parole. He has also drawn our attention towards the orders; Annexures 1 to 4 passed in this respect by the District Magistrate and Advisory Board. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the cases of the petitioners for grant of parole were placed before the Parole Advisory Board in its meeting held on 14.8.98 and 9.10.98. After considering the record the Advisory Board rejected their application. The reports of District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police relating to petitioner Guddu were not received, therefore, his case could not be placed before the Advisory Board. His case will be placed before the Advisory Board in its next meeting. It has also been pointed out that petitioner Guddu should have submitted his application for grant of parole to Jail authorities stating all facts about illness of his wife, but his wife directly submitted application to the District Magistrate which was rejected. The learned PR has placed on record the copy of minutes of Advisory Board dated 14.8.98 and 9.10.98 (Annexures R1 and R2). 5. We have perused the minutes of the advisory Board and the order passed in this respect by the District Magistrate. The learned PR has placed on record the copy of minutes of Advisory Board dated 14.8.98 and 9.10.98 (Annexures R1 and R2). 5. We have perused the minutes of the advisory Board and the order passed in this respect by the District Magistrate. We are of the opinion, that the case of the petitioners has not been considered in right perspective manner because the report of social welfare department was in favour of grant of parole whereas; the report of the Superintendent of Police was against it, but on what grounds the Superintendent of Police has opposed to grant parole to the petitioners, has not been made clear. No material is available on the record to substantiate the report of Superintendent of Police. There must be some valid and cogent grounds to oppose to grant of parole so that Advisory Board could be in a position to decide the application of the petitioners after due consideration. 6. Therefore, we direct that all relevant records be placed before the Advisory Board which will reconsider the matter afresh and pass suitable orders within one month. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. *******