JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, learned AC to AAG-3.

2. Petitioner in the present case is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to quash the order dated 03.04.2020 in so far as it relates to the petitioner (Annexure ‘6’ to the writ application) whereby the State Sentence Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Board’) has rejected the request of the petitioner for his premature release on the ground that in terms of the policy decision of the Government as contained in Notification No. 3106 dated 10th December, 2002, paragraph (iv)(kha) the case of the petitioner is not fit to be considered for premature release. The relevant part of the decision is under challenge.

3. It appears from the record that the petitioner has been convicted vide judgment dated 25.05.2006 for the offences under Section 364A and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine.

4. According to the petitioner, he submitted an application dated 30.11.2019 for consideration of his case for premature release. The Principal Probation Officer in the District Probation Office, Bhabhua (Kaimur) called for a recommendation from the Superintendent, Mandal Kara, Aurangabad. An opinion was also sought from the learned District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The Principal Probation Officer, Babhua (Kaimur) submitted his report wherein he recorded that in course of his inquiry it did not transpire that the petitioner has got any connection with any organization involved in commission of illegal act and from local inquiry he came to a conclusion that the case of the petitioner may be considered for his premature release. The District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas, Sasaram advised the Superintendent, Mandal Kara, Aurangabad that he can take a decision in accordance with the Prison Rules. The Superintendent of Police, Bhabhua also sent his recommendation to the Remission Board for consideration (Annexure ‘5’ and ‘6’ to the writ application).

5. Learned counsel submits that despite all the materials on the record suggesting that the petitioner is not involved with any organization in commission of crime and his case be considered by the Remission Board, the Remission Board has rejected his application on the solitary ground that his case could not be covered under clause (iv) (ka) of the policy decision dated 10th December, 2002. It is specifically stated in paragraph ‘14’ of the writ application that one Motilal Yadav and Prem Prakash Yadav who were convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 364A IPC were released from prison after departmental decision vide letter no. 3874 dated 01.06.2018. Further Vijay Yadav has been released in the same matter by decision of the concerned department vide letter no. 2716 dated 24.04.2020. Annexure ‘10’ to the writ application has been placed before this Court to substantiate the statements made in paragraph ‘14’ of the writ application. In case of Vijay Yadav, he was convicted under Section 364A/34 IPC and the Remission Board has recorded as under:- ^^¼1½ lHkh izfrosnu vuwdwy ¼2½ fn 03-05-2018 dh cSBd dh vuq'kalk ds vkyksd es lg&vfHkqDr izse izdk'k ;kno ,o eksrh yky ;kno dkjkqDr gks pqdk gSA ¼3½ rnvkyksd esa vle; dkjkeqfDr dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA^^

6. Learned counsel, thus, submits that the State-respondents have acted arbitrarily in applying the same set of rules in case of the petitioner in a different manner. It is further pointed out that in the counter affidavit, there is no denial of the statements made in paragraph ‘14’ of the writ application.

7. Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, learned AC to AAG-3 has pressed his counter affidavit before this Court. Learned counsel has though defended the action of the respondents but at the same time does not dispute that the petitioner is not an accused of rape, dacoity or terrorist acts. He has, however, tried to impress upon this Court that t