Full Judgment
1. Petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order as per Annoxure "E" passed by the State refusing to grant parole.
2. The peiitioner is detained in pursuance of a detention order under Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bool-Loggers. Drug Offenders. Gamblers. Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985. The said order has been confirmed by this Court and the matter is now pending before the Apex Court. In the meanwhile, he filed an application under Section 15 of the aforesaid Ac! seeking his temporary release on the ground that his mother is suffering from Oesophagael Malignancy (cancer). He has produced a medical certificate as per Annexure "C" in support of his case. His grievance is that his request has been rejected by the authorities without application of mind, the impugned order is not a speaking order. Therefore, he is before this Court seeking quashing of the said order and for an order releasing him temporarily.
3. Respondents have filed objections.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Section 15 of the aforesaid Act confers powers on the State Government to direct that any person detained in pursuance of a detention order may be released for any specified period, either without conditions or upon such conditions as may be specified in the direction. Therefore, it is clear that power is conferred on the State Government to direct the release the petitioner on parole. When such a request is rejected by the State, the order rejecting the request must disclose the reasons in order to appreciate whether there is application of mind by the State Government to the grounds urged by the petitioner or whether the State Government is justified in declining to grant the temporal release?
6. A perusal of the order impugned shows, though the order states that the Government has considered the request carefully, the said consideration is not reflected in the order. ' In other words, it is not a speaking order. There is no application of mind by the government as is clear from the order which is set-down here under:
7. In the absence of any reason assigned for rejecting the request, it is not possible for this Court to appreciate and find out whether the power has been exercised reasonably. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the impugned order requires to be set-aside and the matter is to be remitted back to the Authority concerned with a direction to apply its mind to the grounds urged by the petitioner in his petition and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law giving reasons either for granting or for refusing to grant relief to which the petitioner is entitled to under Section 15 of the aforesaid Act. That would meet the ends of justice. The said exercise shall be done within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
Writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is hereby set-aside. The entire matter is remitted back to the respondent for re-consideration of the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations within seven days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No costs