JUDGMENT : A.S. Oka, J. On the earlier date, the parties were put to the notice that the Petition will be taken up for the final disposal. 2. In exercise of the powers under Clauses 5 and 28 of Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1984 (for short, "the Prisons Act"), the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (for short, "The said Rules of 1959") have been framed. 3. This Bench has dealt with large number of Writ Petitions challenging the Orders of the Competent Authorities as well as the Appellate Authorities refusing to grant either furlough or parole. We have noticed that in most of the cases, the Appeals are disposed of by the Appellate Authority and especially when the Appellate Authority is the State, in a most cryptic manner. We had called upon the learned APP to produce the file in the present case and we had also requested the learned Public Prosecutor to remain present and assist the Court. 4. As far as the Order regarding grant of furlough is concerned, the sanctioning authority as per Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2 is Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Regional). An Appeal is provided against refusal to release a prisoner on furlough under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 2 of the said Rules of 1959 which lies to the Additional Director General of prisons and Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services. Sub-Rule (4) provides that the decision of the Appellate Authority shall be final. Rule 19 of the said Rules of 1959 as amended provides for grant of two categories of parole. The first is emergency parole and the second is regular parole. The Competent Authority for the grant of parole is the Divisional Commissioner or Additional Divisional Commissioner. 5. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 18 provides that against an Order of the Divisional Commissioner or Additional Divisional Commissioner refusing to grant parole or refusing to extend the period of parole, an Appeal shall lie to the State Government whose decision shall be final. On plain reading of Sub-Rule (ii) of Rule 1 of Rule 18, an Appeal is maintainable against an Order refusing to grant both the categories of parole mentioned in Rule 19 as the Appellate provision does not make a distinction between emergency parole and regular parole. 6. In the present case, we have perused the Order of the Appellate Authority. On plain reading of Sub-Rule (ii) of Rule 1 of Rule 18, an Appeal is maintainable against an Order refusing to grant both the categories of parole mentioned in Rule 19 as the Appellate provision does not make a distinction between emergency parole and regular parole. 6. In the present case, we have perused the Order of the Appellate Authority. Just like many other Orders passed by the State Government in exercise of Appellate powers under Rule 18, it is a cryptic Order. Clause 1 of paragraph 2 of the cryptic Order mentions that the Petitioner has been convicted under the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short, "the MCOC Act"), Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 in relation to an incident at Aurangabad. Later on, by an Order dated 12th February, 2019, a corrigendum was issued for replacing the particulars of the offence mentioned in Clause (1) of paragraph 2 of the Order dated 12th February, 2019 as the Petitioner has been convicted in the case relating to 2006 serial Railway Bomb Blasts in Mumbai. 7. We have perused the file. The learned Public Prosecutor stated that as per the rules of business, the Appellate Authority is the Hon'ble Minister of the State of the Home Department. It appears from the file that after the Appeal was preferred on 31st December 2018 by the Advocate for the Petitioner, a requisition was sent by the State Government calling for the record of the case and several other documents. Thereafter, a note was prepared by an Under Secretary of the Home Department. The note refers to certain documents on record. Though there are more than one police reports on record, the note refers to only one of the police reports. In the note, the Under Secretary has recommended that the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner should be dismissed. The note erroneously mentions that the offence was committed by the Petitioner at Aurangabad. The note is signed, as stated earlier, by the Under Secretary as it is obviously prepared by him. It appears that the note is signed by two more officials of the State Government and thereafter, it is signed by the Hon'ble Minister of the State (Home Department). 8. The note is signed, as stated earlier, by the Under Secretary as it is obviously prepared by him. It appears that the note is signed by two more officials of the State Government and thereafter, it is signed by the Hon'ble Minister of the State (Home Department). 8. At this stage, on instructions, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the note was not prepared by the Under Secretary, Shri. Kamble, but one Assistant Desk Officer in the Department of Home. It appears that on the basis of file notings, the draft of the impugned Order was prepared. There is nothing in the file to show that the said draft was approved by the Hon'ble Minister of State. The draft of the subsequent Order issuing corrigendum again appears to be prepared by the Assistant Desk Officer. On that draft, the signature of the Hon'ble Minister does not appear. It appears that the Deputy Secretary Shri. Karad has written on 12th February, 2019 that the person who has submitted incorrect information should be served with a show cause notice. This remark of the Deputy Secretary Shri Karad ignores that he himself has singed the note prepared by the Assistant Desk Officer containing the incorrect information. The draft Order is signed by the Assistant Secretary which is issued in the name of the Hon'ble the Governor of Maharashtra. 9. Thus, it is crystal clear that the draft Order is not only not drafted by the Appellate Authority namely the Hon'ble the Minister of the State, but it is not even approved by him. Only act committed by the Appellate Authority is of signing the note prepared by the Assistant Disk Officer. Thus, it can safely be said that there is a complete non-application of mind to the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner by the Appellate Authority. 10. The said Rules of 1959 are statutory Rules. Apart from the fact that Rule making power is exercised under the Prisons Act, the power to grant parole can be traced to Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as the grant of parole amounts to suspension of sentence for a limited period. When statutory Rules permit a prisoner to apply for parole of two categories, a right is conferred upon a prisoner to ensure that his Application is considered in accordance with law. When statutory Rules permit a prisoner to apply for parole of two categories, a right is conferred upon a prisoner to ensure that his Application is considered in accordance with law. The emergency parole, for example, can be granted in case of death of an immediate near relatives such as father/ mother/ wife etc. One of the grounds for grant of regular parole is serious illness of near relatives mentioned in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 19 (as Amended). Therefore, grant of parole of both the categories is something which is of a great deal of importance to a prisoner. When the said Rules of 1959 provide for applying for grant of parole, the Competent Authority entrusted with the power to decide the Application, has to carefully apply its mind before passing an Order on the Application for grant of parole. Considering the nature of the powers and the fact that grant of parole involves an emergency, we do not expect that the Competent Authority to write a detailed Judgment. But when parole is refused or when emergency parole is granted for a period of less than 14 days or when emergency parole is granted under a police escort, the Competent Authority empowered to grant parole is expected to record reasons in brief with a view to indicate the application of mind. 11. When the statutory Rules provide for an Appeal either before the Authorities specified in Rule 2 or Rule 18, as the case may be, it is the duty of the Appellate Authority to apply its mind to the Application made by the prisoner, the documents on record and to the brief reasons stated by the Competent Authority. The Appellate Authority is under an obligation to apply its mind and to decide the Appeal again by recording reasons in brief. Here also, we may add that the Appellate Authority is not expected to write a detailed Judgment, but when the Appellate Authority is expected to apply its mind, to indicate the application of mind, reasons in brief must be recorded by the Appellate Authority. Needless to add that the Appellate Authority cannot delegate powers of recording reasons to any Sub-ordinate Officer. In the facts of this case, the reasons have been purportedly recorded in a note prepared by the Assistant Desk Officer working in the Home Ministry. Needless to add that the Appellate Authority cannot delegate powers of recording reasons to any Sub-ordinate Officer. In the facts of this case, the reasons have been purportedly recorded in a note prepared by the Assistant Desk Officer working in the Home Ministry. The reasons in the form of a note are approved by the Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary. Lastly, the note is merely signed by the Hon'ble Minister of the State of the Home Department. On the draft of actual order which is issued, the signature of the Hon'ble Minister does not appear. Without approval of the Hon'ble Minister, both the original Order and the Corrigendum have been issued under the signature of the Under Secretary in the name of the Hon'ble Governor of the State. 12. We are constrained to observe that this is a very sorry state of affairs. When the State by framing statutory Rules has chosen to confer a right on the prisoners to apply for parole or furlough, as the case may be, the Competent Authorities which are empowered to decide the Application and the Appellate Authorities which are empowered to decide the Appeal against the refusal of the Application, cannot act in a casual manner. In the present case, as the job of recording reasons is left to the Assistant Desk Officer, he has committed a gross mistake even while mentioning the nature of offence proved against the prisoner. In this Petition, we do not wish to go into the question as to whether the prisoner has a right of personal hearing before the Appellate Authorities but the Appellate Authorities do exercise the quasi-judicial powers. 13. In large number of cases, the Appeals are preferred by the prisoners through the concerned Jail Superintendent. We are informed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Appeals are forwarded immediately to the Appellate Authorities through a special messenger. As far as the Applications for parole are concerned, the delay matters as one category of parole is emergency parole. Even in second category of regular parole, the delay is very relevant in as much as one of the grounds on which the parole can be sought is of serious ailment of close relatives mentioned in the Rules. 14. As far as the Applications for parole are concerned, the delay matters as one category of parole is emergency parole. Even in second category of regular parole, the delay is very relevant in as much as one of the grounds on which the parole can be sought is of serious ailment of close relatives mentioned in the Rules. 14. Therefore, it is necessary for the State to devise a procedure under which as soon as an Appeal is received by the Jail Superintendent, intimation is immediately sent by the Jail Superintendent to the concerned Competent Authority for immediately forwarding the record of the Application for parole or furlough, as the case may be, to the concerned Appellate Authority. This will curtail the delay in exercise of the Appellate power. It will be appropriate that the Appellate Authorities call upon the concerned Competent Authority to submit a record of the case by sending a communication by e-mail. 15. Normally, an Appeal is required to be decided on the basis of material which is available before the Competent Authority, which has passed the impugned Order, unless for the reasons recorded, the Appellate Authority wants certain other documents to be produced either by the Prison Authorities or by the prisoner. The Appellate Authority cannot mechanically pass an Order calling for the documents which are not on record of the Competent Authorities. 16. We may note here that in case of Appeals which are preferred through an Advocate directly to the Appellate Authority, it is necessary to ensure that the record of the case is immediately called for from the Competent Authority. 17. Perusal of clause (A) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 19 shows that there is a provision for grant of emergency parole in case of death of parental grandfather or grandmother/ father/ mother/ spouse/ son/ daughter etc. The provision is for grant of emergency parole upto the period of 14 days. The object of making this provision is to ensure that when a close relative of prisoner dies, the prisoner must get benefit of company of his other immediate family members and whenever religious practice requires, he can perform obsequies. The provision is for grant of emergency parole upto the period of 14 days. The object of making this provision is to ensure that when a close relative of prisoner dies, the prisoner must get benefit of company of his other immediate family members and whenever religious practice requires, he can perform obsequies. Therefore, in a case where the Application for emergency parole is rejected or whether emergency parole is granted for a period of less than 14 days or where the emergency parole is granted under police escort, the Appellate Authority namely the Hon'ble Minister of State, is expected to decide the Appeal immediately and preferably within a period of three working days from the date on which the Appeal is received. In such a case, the Appellate Authority can call for the scanned copies of the record from the Competent Authority. As stated earlier, the Hon'ble Minister of State of Home Department must apply his mind to the grounds in the Appeal as well as to the record of the case and must record brief reasons in the Order while deciding the Appeal. 18. It will be appropriate if the State Government considers of entrusting the power for deciding such Appeals to a Senior Secretary in the Home Ministry. The reason is that for various reasons, the Hon'ble Ministers are very busy and the Secretaries can find time to decide the Appeal expeditiously. Even in case of regular parole, there is always an element of urgency. Therefore, the State Government must fix an outer limit for deciding the Appeals arising out of the Orders of refusal of regular parole. 19. In this Petition a wider issue of right of personal hearing in Appeal is not specifically raised and hence, it cannot be gone into. However, we must note here that the Appellate Authority always has a discretion to give personal hearing in a fit case, so that the Appellate Authority get assistance. 20. We, therefore, propose to direct the State Government to take appropriate policy decision in the light of what we have held above and issue a necessary Order or a Government Resolution. However, we must note here that the Appellate Authority always has a discretion to give personal hearing in a fit case, so that the Appellate Authority get assistance. 20. We, therefore, propose to direct the State Government to take appropriate policy decision in the light of what we have held above and issue a necessary Order or a Government Resolution. It will be also appropriate for the State Government to consider whether the Appeals under the provisions of the said Rules of 1959 should be numbered and entered in a Register so that it become easier to store the data regarding the Appeals and Orders passed thereon. 21. Coming back to the facts of the case, for reasons we have recorded earlier, the Appeal will have to be remanded to the Appellate Authority which must be decided afresh within time fixed by this Court. 22. In view of above discussion, we pass the following Order- (a) We quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 6th February, 2019 as modified by the Order dated 12th February, 2019 and direct the Appellate Authority to immediately decide the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner. The Appeal shall be decided within a period of 10 days from the date on which the operative part of this Order is uploaded. The Appeal shall be decided within a period of 10 days from the date on which the operative part of this Order is uploaded. The office of the Public Prosecutor shall immediately communicate this Order to the Appellate Authority, without waiting even for the operative part to be uploaded; (b) We direct the office of the Public Prosecutor to place a copy of this Judgment and Order before the Additional Chief Secretary (Home Department) to enable the State to take appropriate decision in terms of what is held in this Judgment and Order; (c) Appropriate Order shall be passed by the State Government or appropriate Government Resolution shall be issued by the State Government within a period of three weeks from the date on which a complete copy of this Judgment and Order is uploaded; (d) Though we are disposing of the Petition, we direct the State Government to file an Affidavit of compliance on or before 5th April, 2019 and for considering the affidavit of compliance, the Petition shall be listed under the caption of "direction" on 9th April, 2019; (e) Needless to add that as held earlier, the Appellate Authority will himself apply its mind to the Appeal and will pass an Order in Appeal by recording brief reasons; (f) We also direct the State Government to incorporate in the Order to be passed or policy decision to be taken that whenever Appeals under the said Rules of 1959 are decided, copies of the Orders passed in the Appeals shall be forthwith provided to the concerned prisoners through the Jail Superintendents of the concerned Jails; (g) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.