JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of finally. 4. Convict-petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging impugned order dated 25.08.2010(Annexure-5) passed by respondents whereby his application for grant of permanent parole has been rejected. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that application of petitioner for grant of permanent parole has been rejected only on the basis of adverse report of concerned Superintendent of Police as well as District Magistrate and no other reason has been assigned; impugned order is not a speaking order. He further submitted that in ground 'G' of writ petition it has been pleaded that petitioner's co-accused namely Shivram Meena S/o. Shri Nathuvaram Meena has already been released on permanent parole whereas no reason has been assigned by the State Government for not considering the case of the petitioner at par with co-accused Shivram Meena, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner may be released on permanent parole. 6. A notice to show cause was issued to respondents, but no reply has been filed by the respondents. 7. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 8. The petitioner in ground 'G' of the writ petition has pleaded as under: "That petitioner's co-accused namely Shivram Meena S/o Shri Nathuvaram Meena has already been released on permanent parole." 9. Respondents have not filed any reply to the writ petition, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the pleading of the petitioner that co-accused Shivram Meena has already been released on permanent parole. A bare perusal of impugned order dated 25.08.2010(Annexure-5) would reveal that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the State Government. In case State Government was not willing to release the petitioner on permanent parole, then reasons ought to have been assigned by the State Government for not treating the case of the petitioner at par with the case of co-accused Shivram Meena. 10. In these circumstances, we find that impugned order passed by the State Government is not a speaking order and the same is liable to be set aside and is, hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the case of co-accused Shivram Meena. 10. In these circumstances, we find that impugned order passed by the State Government is not a speaking order and the same is liable to be set aside and is, hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the case of co-accused Shivram Meena. In case the State Government is not inclined to release the petitioner on permanent parole, then specific reasons will be assigned for not granting permanent parole to the petitioner in the light of order passed in the case of co-accused Shivram Meena. 11. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the State Government qua the petitioner Arvind Kumar @ Tillu is quashed and respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of order passed in the case of co-accused Shivram Meena, as mentioned above. The needful be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. A copy of this order be sent for compliance to Director General and Inspector General of Prisons, Rajasthan, Jaipur as well as Principal Secretary to State Government, Home Department, Group 12, Rajasthan, Jaipur.Writ Petition Allowed. *******