JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner's son, who is undergoing sentence in SC.97/2014 of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kasaragod, for the offences under Sections 120B and 302 IPC, has sought for parole as per Rule 397 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014. The Superintendent of the Central Prison, Kannur, called for reports of the Sub Inspector of Police concerned and also the District Probation Officer. Even though the District Probation Officer has approved the good conduct of the son of the petitioner on almost all the portions of the report, finally, the Probation Officer has not recommended for parole. The Sub Inspector of Police also has opposed the grant of parole to the son of the petitioner. 2. Even though such reports were obtained, the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Kannur, has been keeping it in his own files without forwarding it to the Director General (Prisons). 3. As per Rule 397(f) of the aforesaid Rules, the authority to grant the first parole is the Director General(Prisons) and the authority to grant subsequent paroles is the Superintendent of the Prison concerned. Therefore, in this particular case, the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Kannur, instead of keeping the application and the reports in his own files, ought to have forwarded the same to the Director General (Prisons). 4. As per Rule 397(h) of the said Rules, three requirements are there for considering an application for parole. The report of the Sub Inspector of Police regarding the matters contained in the said Rule has to be obtained and the report should contain whether the granting of parole would be detrimental to the safety of others or the prisoner, whether it would be detrimental to the law and order situation, whether there is any possibility of the prisoner to abscond, and whether there was any history of any misconduct from him while he was on parole. 5. The next requirement is that the Superintendent of the Prison shall give a recommendation showing the previous conduct of the prisoner and the details regarding the parole so far granted. The third requirement is that, a report has to be obtained from the District Probation Officer regarding the family background, social background, the acceptability of the prisoner by the society, etc. 6. The third requirement is that, a report has to be obtained from the District Probation Officer regarding the family background, social background, the acceptability of the prisoner by the society, etc. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the report of the Probation Officer regarding the said aspects contained in Rule 397(h) is in favour of the son of the petitioner. 7. Rule 404 of the said Rules deals with appeals. In case of rejection of an application from the prisoner for parole, he has the right of appeal. Even if on extraneous grounds, which are not noted in Rule 397(h), either the Sub Inspector of Police or the Probation Officer has not recommended for parole, it is for the authority for granting parole to decide whether parole has to be granted or not. They are not bound by the mere refusal of recommendation. What has to be considered by them is whether the report conforms to the matters contained in Rule 397(h). 8. When there is a provision for appeal, there should be an order on all applications for parole preferred by the prisoners. It has been pointed out before this Court that unfortunately, such applications are being kept unnecessarily without passing orders. 9. Here is a case wherein the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Kannur, ought to have forwarded the application along with the reports and his recommendation, if any, to the Director General(Prisons). In case of rejection of that application by the Director General(Prisons), there is a right of appeal under Rule 404(iv) to the petitioner, before the government. 10. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has pointed out that such applications are not being forwarded merely by assigning a reason that these applications are not addressed to the Director General(Prisons). Irrespective of the fact as to whether the applications for first parole are addressed to the Director General(Prisons) or not, the applications should be forwarded to the Director General(Prisons) by the Superintendent of Prisons concerned. All other applications shall be decided by the Superintendent of Prisons themselves and orders have to be passed. Then only the prisoner concerned will get an opportunity to prefer an appeal in case he is aggrieved. 11. Hereafter, such applications whether it is addressed to the Director General(Prisons) or the Superintendent of Prisons shall be disposed of through an order in writing. Then only the prisoner concerned will get an opportunity to prefer an appeal in case he is aggrieved. 11. Hereafter, such applications whether it is addressed to the Director General(Prisons) or the Superintendent of Prisons shall be disposed of through an order in writing. Applications for parole for the first time, whether it is addressed to the Director General(Prisons) or the Superintendent of Prisons, shall be forwarded to the Director General(Prisons) along with the reports contemplated under Rule 397(h), expeditiously. Even if parole has not been recommended by the persons noted in Rule 397(h) as aforesaid, applications for parole for the first time shall be forwarded to the Director General(Prisons) along with the reports. All other applications are to be disposed of by the Superintendent of Prisons concerned. 12. Another difficulty being faced by the jail authorities has been pointed out by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. It has been pointed out that when reports are being called for from the Sub Inspector of Police concerned, and also the District Probation Officers concerned, there is a tendency in not furnishing such report in time, and only on repeated requests, they used to forward such reports, that too, belatedly. The said acts are blatant violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hereafter, all such police officers in charge of the Police Station or Station House Officers on getting such request for a report from the jail authorities, shall scrupulously furnish the report, expeditiously, without delay. The District Probation Officers also shall see that such requests are being complied with, expeditiously. In case of violation, such negligence will invite proceedings for contempt. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur, to forward the application for parole of the son of the petitioner with the reports to the Director General(Prisons), forthwith. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Director General(Prisons) and the Superintendents of all the Central Prisons and Open Prisons in the State of Kerala, for compliance.