JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral).- The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’) for grant of agricultural parole to the petitioner. 2. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent-State. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. 4. Admitted facts are that, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in FIR No.227 dated 22.10.2001, under Sections 302/148/149/452 IPC, Police Station Ganaur by learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide order dated 12.10.2004. His appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by this Court. His case for his release on agricultural parole was initiated by Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon as he was entitled as per rules. District Magistrate, Sonepat on the report of Tehsildar has also recommended the release of petitioner on parole. However, the competent authority i.e. Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon has rejected the release of the petitioner on agricultural parole vide impugned order Annexure R2 on the ground that land is jointly owned by him alongwith his brother and the same is also cultivated by his brother. 5. Section 3 of the Act provides that a convict can be released on parole which reads as under:- “3. Temporary release of prisoners on certain grounds. (1) The State Government may, in consultation with the District Magistrate or any other officer appointed in this behalf, by notification in the official gazette and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, release temporarily for a period specified in sub-section (2), any prisoner, if the State Government is satisfied that. (a) a member of the prisoner’s family had died or is seriously ill or the prisoner himself is seriously ill; or (b) the marriage of prisoner himself, his son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, brother, sister, sister’s son or daughter is to be celebrated; or (c) the temporary release of the prisoner is necessary for ploughing, sowing or harvesting or carrying on any other agricultural operation on his land or his father’s undivided land actually in possession of the petitioner. (d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. (d) it is desirable to do so for any other sufficient cause. (2) The period for which a prisoner may be released shall be determined by the State Government so as not to exceed- (a) where the prisoner is to be released on the grounds specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), three weeks; (b) where the prisoner is to be released on the ground specified in clause (b) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), four weeks; and (c) where the prisoner is to be released on the grounds specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1), six weeks; Provided that the temporary release under clause (c) can be availed more than once during the year, which shall not, however, cumulatively exceed six weeks. (3) The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner. (4) The State Government may, by notification, authorize any officer to exercise its powers under this section in respect of all or any other ground specified thereunder.” Further Section 6 of the Act provides for the grounds on which the parole can be refused, which reads as under:- “6. Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain cases. – Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or an officer authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.” Bare perusal of Section 6 of the Act shows that release of petitioner on parole can be refused only on the ground that the same is likely to endanger the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order. It is a statutory right of the petitioner-convict to avail parole under Section 3 (1)(c) of the Act and the same can be refused on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. However, in the present case, the request of the petitioner for his release on agricultural parole was rejected by the competent authority merely on the ground that land was jointly owned by his brother alongwith the petitioner and the same is being ‘cultivated by his brother. However, in the present case, the request of the petitioner for his release on agricultural parole was rejected by the competent authority merely on the ground that land was jointly owned by his brother alongwith the petitioner and the same is being ‘cultivated by his brother. Hence, it cannot be said that rejection of release of the petitioner on agricultural parole is justified on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. Hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.07.2010, Annexure R2 passed by the competent authority refusing release of the petitioner on agricultural parole is set-aside. 7. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner for his release on agricultural parole in the light of the observations of this Court made above and as per the act, the rules and the instructions on the point, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. --------------------