JUDGMENT S. D. Anand, J.:-The parole plea of the petitioner-prisoner, a convict in case FIR No. 30 dated 19.2.2001 under Sections 302, 307, 398, 449/34 IPC and lodged in Model Jail, Chandigarh, was declined by the competent authority (respondent no.2) vide order dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure A-2) by recording that “the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur (Bihar) has not recommended for the release of convict Salabudin s/o Nizamudin on parole on plea that the situation may be worsened if the convict is released on parole.” 2. The impugned order does not, at all, indicate what actually persuaded the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, to observe that the situation would worsen due to the release of the petitioner-prisoner on parole. 3. Though a prisoner cannot claim release on parole as of right, there can equally be no dispute with the proposition that the competent authority must record reasons for declining a request. Then only can it be said that the order of the competent authority would be in accord with the principle of transparency and fair play because the cause for declining shall be announced to the petitioner-prisoner. The impugned order fails that test. 4. At the time of arguments before this Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the U.T., Chandigarh resists the plea by arguing that no medical certification in support of the averment (to the effect that the mother of the petitioner is aged 85 years and is ailing) had been filed by the petitioner-prisoner. 5. In the face of the averment, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the mother of the petitioner being a resident of a remote area in Bihar, no qualified medical practitioner is available over there. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection if the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh ascertains the correctness of the averment at its own level. By the very nature of things, the State has fabulous infrastructural facilities at its disposal for ascertainment of such like facts. 6. The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly with the following directions:- a) The respondent-U.T., Chandigarh shall ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the averment made by the petitioner; b) If the averment regarding the health and age status of the mother of the petitioner is found to be correct, the petitioner shall be released on parole. If the averment is found to be factually incorrect, the competent authority may pass an order to the contrary. If the averment is found to be factually incorrect, the competent authority may pass an order to the contrary. c) The exercise shall be concluded within one from today. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority. 7. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. --------------------