ORDER Amar Dutt, J. - Petitioner-Pawan Kumar has filed this petition asserting that the application moved by him to the respondents for grant of parole in order to enable him to carry out necessary repairs of his house was rejected on 28.2.2000 because the District Magistrate had reported that the "convict has a residential house, which does not require repairs". Dissatisfied by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court and appended with the petition a Panchayatnama issued by the Gram Panchayat of village Chandawas indicating that "the house of the petitioner is very old; it is broken at places; and if it is not repaired early then it may collapse at any time." 2. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents by the Superintendent, District Jail, Mohindergarh reliance was sought to be placed on the report of the District Magistrate for submitting that the petitioners application had been rightly rejected. 3. I have heard Shri A.S. Trikha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Vijay Dahiya, appearing for the State and scrutinised the stand taken by the authorities in writing before this Court. The parole case of the petitioner is being rejected primarily on the ground that the condition of the house of the petitioner is such that it does not require repairs. The question as to whether the accommodation available with any prisoner requires repair or not has to be decided by the prisoner himself after taking into consideration the financial resources that are available with him and his own standard of living. In view of this, although by government standards the accommodation available with the family of the prisoner may not be requiring repairs but that would not entitle the officials of the State to assert that the prisoner is not entitled to make any effort to improve the condition thereof in such a way so as to provide semblance of a better shelter to the members of his family. Unless and until the State takes upon itself the task of providing proper accommodation which according to its standards would be fit for habitation by the dependents of a prisoner, it would neither be proper nor just for it to prevent any attempt being made by the prisoner to provide some protection to his kith and kin from the vagaries of weather. 4. 4. For the reasons recorded above, the order passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of parole cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of two weeks on his furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Rewari, who shall order for the release of the petitioner on accepting the bail and surety bonds. The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities after the expiry of the period of parole. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the period of parole and he shall avail the parole only for the purpose it was applied for. In case the petitioner violates any term or condition of bail bond, it will be open to the State to take the petitioner into custody. Petition allowed.