Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—This writ application has been preferred by a life convict who had been sentenced to death by the learned trial court but in appeal the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has commuted his death sentence to one of life imprisonment. Being a life convict, the petitioner has spent 22 years of imprisonment with remission at the time of filing of the writ application. He made a request to the competent authority to allow him to go on premature release, however, his request for premature release has been rejected by the Bihar State Remission Board vide minute of the meeting dated 27.01.2020.

2. In the aforementioned background the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:—

“I. To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decisions taken by State Punishment Remission Council (Here in after referred as ‘Council) Dated 27.01.2020 with respect to the petitioner whereby and where under the case of Remission and release of the petitioner was rejected on non est grounds without looking in to the facts and the circumstances of the case and without considering the case of the petitioner in proper perspective particularly ignoring the findings recorded by the Division Bench in case of petitioner in its Judgement Dated 02.11.2007 in Cr. Appeal No. 690 of 2005 (DB).

II. To issue further appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for premature release under the provisions of section 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of the Bihar Prison Manual as also in view of the Principles decided by Hon’ble Apex court and the High Court.

III. To issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the facts and the circumstances of the case directing the Respondents to release the petitioner forth with without any further delay.

IV. This Hon’ble court may adjudicate and hold that the Council has not considered the case of the petitioner for premature release in the light of the findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble court in the case, of petitioner and has practically ignored the said finding and passed the rejection order on 27.01.2020 in mechanical manner on wholly erroneous grounds.

V. This Hon’ble court may further adjudicate and hold that in view of the specific findings recorded on 02.11.2007 by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on the subject, it was not appropriate for the council to reject the case of the petitioner for premature release on the non est Grounds.

VI. This Hon’ble court may further adjudicate and hold that for the negligence and latches on the part of the Respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer.

VII. This Hon’ble court may further adjudicate and hold that in the facts and the circumstances of the case the action of the Respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for pre mature release, after having under gone 22 years imprisonment with remission, is an act of the malafide and arbitrary exercise of the power by the Respondents.

VIII. To award the cost of litigation and suitable compensation to the Petitioner for the loss and damages caused to the petitioner by the erroneous considerations/actions of the respondents.

IX. To allow any other relief or reliefs for which the Petitioner is found entitled in the fact and circumstances of this case.”

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was an accused in Sessions Trial No. 220 of 2003 arising out of Falka P.S. Case No. 39 of 2002. He was convicted for the offences under Sections 364A, 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 07.09.2005 passed by learned Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Katihar. The petitioner was awarded death sentence, against the said judgment of conviction and sentenced the petitioner preferred C