Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 698 (RAJ)

BIRBAL MAHARIA v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

2000-05-30

G.L.GUPTA, J.C.VERMA

body2000
Judgment G. L. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the say of the petitioner is that he is in jail since 1992 and has undergone more than nine years sentence, yet he has not been granted parole. It is stated that the petitioner had moved applications to the Jail Authorities for the grant of parole on 12-8-1997, 17-3-1998, 6-11-1998 and 31-7-99, but in vain whereas under the law he is entitled for the grant of first parole. It is further stated that looking to the good conduct of the petitioner, he is in open jail and, therefore, there could not be any cause to refuse the parole to the petitioner. ( 2 ) IN the reply, the respondents have stated that the grounds mentioned in the applications of the petitioner were found to be false and the parole has been refused on the basis of adverse reports of the S. P. and the Social Welfare Officer. ( 3 ) WE had heard arguments on 24-5-2000, and the order was reserved. While perusing the record, we noticed that the matter of parole was considered by the District Parole Advisory Committee on 12-10-1999, which was attended by five persons, some of whom were not the members of the Committee, therefore in order to bring this fact to the notice of the respondents, we listed the matter for re-hearing. ( 4 ) IT is frankly conceded by the learned Additional Advocate General that the Committee, which considered the matter of grant of parole to the petitioner on 12-10-1999, was not properly constituted committee. Rule 2 (g) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules 1958 reads as follows :-"2 (g) District Parole Advisory Committee means a committee consisting of the following which will decide as to release the Prisoners on First, Second and Third parole revocation of the orders of Prisoners released on parole and other like matters arising under the rules which the District Parole Advisory Committee (hereinafter be referred to as "district Committee" is required to deal with :-1. District Magistrate chairman2. Supreintendent of Police member3. Superintendent/dy. Supdt. , Jail member4. Probation Officer memberthe quorum for transacting the business of the Committee shall be two including the Chairman. District Magistrate chairman2. Supreintendent of Police member3. Superintendent/dy. Supdt. , Jail member4. Probation Officer memberthe quorum for transacting the business of the Committee shall be two including the Chairman. Where the Chairman is unable to attend the meeting of the Committee, the proceedings of the Committee shall be forwarded to the Chairman for his approval. In case the Chairman decides to take into consideration in the next meeting of the Committee which shall be attended by the Chairman also. " ( 5 ). A reading of the Rule 2 (g) makes it clear that the meeting is required to be presided over by the District Magistrate and other members of the Committee are Superintendent of Police, Superintendent/dy. Supdt. , Jail and Probation Officer of the District. In the instant case the meeting was attended not by the Superintendent of Police but by the Additional Superintendent of Police as representative of the Superintendent of Police. Further, one officer designated as Assistant Legal Remembrancer, Collectorate, Sikar, also attended the meeting. ( 6 ) IT is obvious that the meeting of the Committee was attended by two persons who were not the members of the Committee. Under the Rules, Additional S. P. is not the member of the Committee. It is not permissible for the Superintendent of Police to send any officer working under him to attend the meeting of the Committee constituted under the Rules of 1958. When the rule says that one of the member of the District Committee is Supdt. of Police, then only the Supdt. of Police is entitled to attend the meeting. The participation in the meeting of the Additional Supdt. of Police was without authority. ( 7 ) SIMILARLY, it is not understood how the Assistant Legal Remembrancer of the Collectorate was invited to attend the meeting of the Committee. In the matters of the Committees, which are constituted under the provisions of some Act or Rules, whenever it is provided as to who are the members of such Committee it is not permissible to include or invite any other person in the meeting. ( 8 ) IT is obvious that the participation of the Additional Supdt. of Police and the Asstt. Legal Remembrancer in the meeting was without any authority and due to their participation, the proceedings of the meeting have vitiated. ( 8 ) IT is obvious that the participation of the Additional Supdt. of Police and the Asstt. Legal Remembrancer in the meeting was without any authority and due to their participation, the proceedings of the meeting have vitiated. ( 9 ) AS the decision was taken in the meeting of 12-10-1999, with the help of unauthorized persons, there is no value of such decision in the eye of law. The matter, requires to be considered by the validly constituted Committee. It has become necessary to direct the authorities to reconvene the meeting and decide the matter of grant of parole to the petitioner. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, it is directed that the respondents shall place the matter before the District Parole Advisory Committee, Sikar, within a period of four weeks from today to consider the case of grant of parole to the petitioner. Needless to emphasize that the Committee shall also consider the cases of all those convicts, whose matters had been considered in the meeting of 12-10-1999. ( 11 ) THE petition is disposed of as above. Order accordingly. .