JUDGMENT 1. This petition with the prayer for grant of emergency parole to the convict-prisoner Asu Ram son of Shri Balla Ram came to be filed by the prisoner's wife on 14 05 2012 with the submissions that the prisoner's mother had expired on 24.04.2012. It has been pointed out that the prisoner had earlier availed the parole under the orders dated 25.03.2009, 26.05.2010 and 20.10.2011 without any cause of complaint. It has also been submitted in this petition that the prisoner's case for emergency parole was not being considered by the Superintendent. Central Jail, Jodhpur with reference to an order dated 23.06.2011 (Annex.1) as issued by the Government in its Home Department. 2. On the matter being taken up for consideration today, the learned Government Counsel has pointed out that the District Magistrate concerned has passed an order on 22.05.2012 granting 15 days' emergency parole to the prisoner Asu Ram. A copy of the order dated 22.05.2012 has been placed before us for perusal. which is taken on record. 3. For the necessary order granting emergency parole having been passed by the concerned District Magistrate, this petition could only be considered in-fructuous; and ordinarily, we would have closed the matter with these observations but then, it appears expedient and necessary that the said wholly unjustified and unauthorised order dated 23.06.2011, which has been commented adversely by this Court in the past, be annulled while impressing upon the authorities to act strictly in accordance with law. 4. In the matters of the present nature, of the prayer for grant of emergency parole, usually the orders, granting or refusing the emergency parole, are urgently required to be passed because any postponement of the matter may not serve the purpose. This has resulted in the position that despite this Court having made observations against the legality of said order dated 23.06.2011, the authorities concerned have chosen to ignore the observations of this Court with impunity because almost in all such cases, the cause for emergent parole, by its very nature, ceased to remain alive for long and hence, final pronouncement was not made about invalidity of the said order. 5. 5. It appears apposite to refer to an order dated 24.01.2012 as passed in Parole Petition No.351/2012 wherein, even while declining the prayer for emergency parole, we had noticed the contents of the said order dated 23.06 2011 and found them prima facie not in conformity with the provisions as contained in Rule 10A of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 ('the Rules') while observing as under: "One aspect of the matter relating to the order dated 23.06.2011 appears calling for comments. Rule 10A of the Rules has been reproduced hereinabove and it is but apparent that in the said Rule, the power and authority is vested in the Superintendent of Jail concerned for grant of parole for 7 days. The State Government in its Home Department has proceeded to issue the said questioned order dated 23.06.2011 that reads as under: " jktLFkku fiztulZ fjyht vku iSjksy :Yl] 1958 ds fu;e 10 ( , ) ds vUrxZr 1- fdlh cUnh ds utnhdh fj'rsnkj ;Fkk ekrk&firk] ifr&ifRu] cPps] HkkbZ ,oa fookfgr cgu ds xaHkhj :i ls chekj gksus 2- ,sls utnhdh fj'rsnkj dh e'R;q 3- izkd'frd vkink ls tu&/ku dks xaHkhj uqdlku 4- canh ds Lo;a dh] mlds iq= vFkok iq=h ds fookg rFkk canh ds ekrk&firk thfor u gksus dh fLFkfr easa cUnh ds HkkbZ cgu ds fookg ij] fdlh canh ds 7 fnol ds vkdfLed iSjksy ij fjgk djus gsrq v/kh{kd dkjxkj izk/khd'r gSA jkT; ljdkj ds /;ku esa vk;k gS fd v/kh{kd dkjkxkj }kjk fu;eksa ds ifjizs{; gSA vkikr iSjksy ds izdj.kksa esa iwjs rF;ksa dh iqf"V djok;s fcuk ,oa bu ij xaHkhjrk ls i;kZIr fopkj fd;s fcuk gh cafn;ksa dks vkdfLed iSjksy Lohd'r dj fn;s tkrs gSa] ftlls fu;eksa dh ;Fkksfpr ikyuk esa dk;Zokgh ugha gks ikrhA vr% ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd vfxze vkns'kksa rd v/kh{kd dkjxkj ds Lrj ls cafn;ksa dks vkikr iSjksy Lohd'r ugha fd;s tkosa rFkk vkikr iSjksy ds vkosnu rRijrk ls egkfuns'kd ,oa egkfujh{kd dkjxkj@lacaf/kr ftyk eftLV~sV dks fuLrkj.k gsrq fHktok;s tkosaA " We are, prima facie,of the view that when the statutory Rules provide for a specific power with the specific authority, the State Government could hardly be considered having a power to put at naught such a power by an executive order. Prima facie, we are unable to find such power with the State Government under the Rules that any power under the Rules with an authority could be taken away in this manner. It appears that the State Government while issuing the said order had itself been conscious of the position that any such proposition would require requisite amendment in the Rules as is clear from the endorsement made in the said order to the Director General of Prison that reads as under: " 1- egkfuns'kd dkjxkj] jktLFkku] t;iqj dks muds i= 5068 fnukad 26-05-2011 ds dze esa izsf"kr dj ys[k gS fd jktLFkku fiztulZ fjyht vkWu iSjksy :Yl] 1958 ds iw.kZ ,oa Li"V izLrko fHktokus dk Je djsA " It has not been brought on record if any amendment has been made in the Rules. We make it clear that as this petition is, otherwise, being dismissed on merits, we are not interfering with the said order dated 23.06.2011 in this petition but it shall be expected of the authorities concerned to examine the Rules and the observations made herein and to take appropriate decision in regard to the questioned order dated 23.06.2011." 6. We are constrained to comment that despite the aforesaid observations, the concerned authorities have belied our expectations and no one has bothered to re-examine the questioned order with reference to the Rules. We put on record strong disapproval of such perfunctory and casual approach of the concerned authorities on whom we reposed the faith that they would see the reasons and would take corrective steps so as to proceed in accordance with law. In the circumstances where the concerned authorities in the State Government would neither look into the Rules nor the observations of the Court, we feel it imperative now to deal with and annul the said order dated 23.06.2011. 7. Rule 10A of the Rules that permits grant of emergency parole reads as under: "10A.(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of rules 3,4,5,9 and 10, in emergent cases, involving humanitarian consideration viz. (1) critical condition of account of illness of any close relations i.e. father, mother, wife, husband, children, brother or un-married sister; (2) death of any such close relation; and (3) serious damage to life or property from any natural calamity. (4) Marriage of a Prisoner, his/her son or daughter or his/her brothers/sisters in case his/her parents are not alive. (1) critical condition of account of illness of any close relations i.e. father, mother, wife, husband, children, brother or un-married sister; (2) death of any such close relation; and (3) serious damage to life or property from any natural calamity. (4) Marriage of a Prisoner, his/her son or daughter or his/her brothers/sisters in case his/her parents are not alive. A prisoner may be released on parole for a period not exceeding 7 days by the Superintendent of the Jail and for a period not exceeding 15 days by the Inspector General of Prisons District Magistrate on such terms and conditions as they may, consider necessary to impose for the security of the prisoner including a guarantee for his return to the Jail, acceptance or execution whereof would be a condition precedent to the release of such a prisoner on parole. (ii) A copy of the order for release of prisoners on parole shall be endorsed to the next higher authority giving full circumstances under which the parole has been allowed. In case the next higher authority does not approve the grant of parole, he may ask the authority granting the parole to revoke the same who shall act accordingly." 8. In the scheme of Rule 10A ibid., we are unable to find any authority with the State Government to arrest altogether the power of the Superintendent of the Jail concerned for granting parole for a period upto 7 days in emergent cases. If any of the Superintendent concerned had passed the order under Rule 10A ibid. without proper enquiry, the defaulting officer could have been proceeded against but the Government could not have passed an order as if to take away the powers of the Superintendent of Jail altogether. 9. As commented earlier in the order reproduced hereinabove, the Government was conscious of the position that any such proposition depriving the Superintendent of Jail altogether of the powers vested in him by the Rules would require necessary amendment in the Rules and hence, an endorsement was made to the Director General (Prisons) to come out with the proposal for amendment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such amendment has come to his notice. The learned Government Counsel is also unable to say if any amendment has been made in the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such amendment has come to his notice. The learned Government Counsel is also unable to say if any amendment has been made in the Rules. In the face of Rule 10A ibid., the order dated 23.06.2011 as issued by the State Government in its Home Department putting a blanket ban on the powers of the Superintendent of Jail for granting emergency parole could only be considered invalid, illegal and wholly unjustified. The questioned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed. 10. In view of the above, even when this petition is dismissed as in-fructuous, the said order dated 23.06.2011 as issued by the State Government in its Home Department is quashed. Under the existing Rule 10A of the Rules, the concerned Superintendent of Jail shall have the power to release a prisoner for a period not exceeding seven days in extreme emergent cases referred in the said Rules. It goes without saying that while exercising such powers, the concerned Superintendent shall be expected to pass a speaking order while taking all the relevant factors into account; and while ordering release, would be expected to impose such reasonable conditions as might be necessary for ensuring return of the prisoner to jail.Writ Petition Dismissed since Parole was Granted by District Magistrate - Impugned Order set Aside. *******