Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shahjad vs State Of Raj on 26 September, 2012
Bench: Govind Mathur, R.S.Chauhan
-1-
DBCivil (Parole) Writ Petition No.8820/2012
Shahzad
v.
State of Rajasthan
Date of Order :: 26th September, 2012
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN
Mr. K.R.Bhati, for the petitioner.
Mr. K.R.Bishnoi, Govt. Counsel, for the respondents.
....
A letter addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court by convict-prisoner Shahzad is treated as a petition for writ.
As per the averments contained in the application the petitioner, a convict-prisoner is
undergoing life term imprisonment being convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara and is at present lodged at Central Jail, Ajmer. An application preferred by him for transfer to open air camp as per provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1972") has not been forwarded to the competent authority being having an -2- impediment as per Rule 3(m) of the Rules of 1972 which prescribes that a prisoner who is unmarried shall ordinarily be not eligible for being sent to open air camp. The validity of the provision aforesaid was examined by this Court in DBCr.(Parole) Writ Petition No.8587/2011, Geeta Devi v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 20.10.2011. In the case aforesaid this Court held that classification of the prisoners made under Rule 3(m) of the Rules of 1972 on basis of marital status is irrational and is having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Rules of 1972. The Rule was accordingly declared bad and was set aside. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta Devi (supra) the respondents cannot deny admission to an unmarried person to open air camp under the Rules of 1972. The respondents as such erred while not forwarding case of the petitioner for admission to open air camp. It is not in dispute that except the impediment prescribed under Rule 3(m) of the Rules of 1972, the petitioner does not suffer from any other ineligibility.
In view of the discussions made above, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents should have forwarded case of the petitioner for his admission to open air camp in accordance with law. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for admission to open air camp in -3- accordance with the rules of 1972 ignoring Rule 3(m) of the Rules aforesaid.
(R.S.CHAUHAN),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. kkm/ps