ORDER BY THE COURT The petitioner-prisoner, who is serving the sentence in Central Jail at Bikaner, has sent this letter petition stating grievance against denial of second 30 days’ parole. The consideration of the case of the petitioner by the District Parole Committee, Hanumangarh in its meeting dated 24.02.2014 had been as under:- ^^¼13½ vorkj flag mQZ txrkj flag iq= ‘ksj flag tkfr jk;fl[k fu- okMZ 14 fVCch iqfyl Fkkuk fVCch gky dsUnzh; dkjkx`g] chdkusj %& ¼1½ cUnh ds iq= eaxkflg fu- eDdklj us fyf[kr fjiksVZ is’k dh gS fd gekjs ?kj es dksbZ fo’ks”k ekSdk ;k volj ugh gS ftlds dkj.k esjs firk dks iSjksy ij cqyk;k tk lds esjh NksVh cfgu dh ‘kknh ds oDr esjs firk dks iSjksy ij cqykamxkA ¼2½ CkUnh }kjk fn;s x;s irs ij ifjokj dk dksbZ lnL; fuokl ugh djrk gSA Having gone through the minutes of the meeting of the District Parole Committee in relation to the petitioner and having taken into consideration the overall facts and circumstances including the fact that the petitioner-prisoner appears to have peacefully availed of 20 days' first parole, we are constrained to observe that the consideration of his case by the District Parole Committee cannot be said to be adequate and based on relevant considerations. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that parole plea of a prisoner ought not be declined on mere ipse dixit ; and any decision declining parole plea ought to be based on cogent and convincing reasons. In this case, where the prisoner has earlier availed of first parole without any cause of complaint and his jail conduct is also shown to be satisfactory, the Committee ought to have taken such factors specifically into consideration. We are further constrained to express our serious reservations on the manner of the dealing with the parole plea of the prisoner concerned by the District Parole Committee where nothing in relation to the specific reports of the concerned authorities has been mentioned except a cryptic suggestion that on the address as given by the prisoner, none of the member of his family is residing. Such a comment is also incomplete when read in the context of the other facts that indeed the petitioner has a family and his son is residing at Makkasar. Such a comment is also incomplete when read in the context of the other facts that indeed the petitioner has a family and his son is residing at Makkasar. It is also not indicated as to what was the address verified by the respondents while allowing 20 day’s first parole to the petitioner. So far the suggestion about the alleged written report of the son of the prisoner is concerned, whether any particular event is scheduled in the family or not has hardly any bearing on the right of the prisoner to seek regular parole under the applicable Rules. Moreover, the question about the grant of parole, cannot be left at the whims and fancies of the son of the petitioner. However, in the totality of the circumstances, we are not making any final comments on the merits and would prefer leaving it open for the District Parole Committee concerned to reconsider the case in accordance with law. Hence, this petition is partly allowed in the manner that the decision in regard to the petitioner-prisoner on his parole plea as taken on 24.02.2014 is set aside. The case of the petitioner-prisoner is restored for re-consideration by the concerned District Parole Committee. The District Parole Committee would be expected to take the decision afresh on the parole plea of the petitioner expeditiously and in any case, within 30 days from today, while keeping in view the observations foregoing.