JUDGMENT : J.R. Vora, J. Heard learned advocate Ms.S.G.Patel for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. I.M. Pandya for the respondent - State. 2. This application is preferred by the convict-prisoner against an order passed by the District Magistrate, Rajkot on 17th March, 2005, rejecting the application for convict-prisoner for parole of 90 days for filing of an appeal before the Supreme Court. The application came to be rejected by the District Magistrate on the ground that police opinion was adverse against the petitioner and there were possibilities of breach of peace and abscondence of the convict-prisoner. 3. This Court is shocked to learn that the competent authority like District Magistrate acting under statutory powers passes order absolutely mechanically and without application of mind. Not only that but the order passed is in flagrant, violation of and disrespect and disregard of the guidelines issued by this Court frequently to competent authorities, which may amount to contempt of this Court. In the matter of Valjibhai Becharbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat and others, as reported in 1993 (2) G.L.R. 1199 and in the matter of Vasram Gagji v. State of Gujarat & Ors., as reported in 1993 (1) G.L.R. 404 , this Court has issued proper guidelines. It is hoped that the competent authority like District Magistrate shall take little pain to go through these guidelines issued by this Court, so this miscarriage of justice may not occur again. 4. On noticing the jail record, it clearly appears that a convict-prisoner was released on temporary bail for nine times and on furlough for four times, his jail conduct is good. On all the occasions, the convict-prisoner is surrendered to jail in time and no untoward incident is reported whenever he is temporarily released. A competent Authority shall also take little pain to go through the jail record and inquire from the police that during the release of the convict-prisoner temporarily as aforesaid, if any untoward incident had occurred instead of relying upon mechanically on mechanical opinion of police. 5. The order under challenged is per se miscarriage of justice and is quashed and set aside. It is hoped that the District Magistrate, Rajkot-competent authority shall apply his mind to a given case, while exercising statutory powers. 5. The order under challenged is per se miscarriage of justice and is quashed and set aside. It is hoped that the District Magistrate, Rajkot-competent authority shall apply his mind to a given case, while exercising statutory powers. It is further directed that the District Magistrate, Rajkot shall decide the application of the convict-prisoner for parole afresh, without being influenced by the police opinion or the order passed by him on 17th March, 2005, keeping in mind the guidelines issued by this Court. The competent authority i.e. District Magistrate, Rajkot shall decide the said application of the convict-prisoner within eight days from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court and that the writ shall be certified by the District Magistrate himself. It is further directed that the Registry of this Court shall report to this Court that the writ is certified by the District Magistrate, Rajkot. 6. With the above said order, this Special Criminal Application is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above said extent. A copy of this order to be made available to learned APP immediately for onwards transmission to concerned authority. Direct service is permitted. Rule made absolute.