1. W.P. Nos. 1032 of 2016 and 4598 of 2016 are filed seeking quashment of G.O. (D) Nos.872 and 931, Home (Prisons-IV) Department dated 07.12.2015 and 28.12.2015 respectively passed by the first respondent and further, for a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of the Advisory Board Report dated 11.05.2012 to the petitioners and release them prematurely.

2. W.P. Nos.2518 and 6416 of 2016 are filed seeking quashment of G.O. (D) Nos.935 and 932, Home (Prisons-IV) Department dated 28.12.2005 passed by the first respondent.

3. One Suseela Ranganathan was murdered, in connection with which a case in Crime No.829 of 1995 was registered by the Inspector of Police, G-3, Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai and after the investigation was completed, final report was filed, in which the petitioners herein, were arrayed as accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and trial in S.C. No.318 of 1996 was held by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced on 02.04.1997 as follows:-

S.No.	Offence	Sentence
1	Section 302 r/w 34 IPC	Life imprisonment
2	Section 449 IPC	7 years RI and Rs.1,000/-fine in default to suffer RI for 3 months
3	Section 397 r/w 34 IPC	7 years RI and Rs.1,000/-fine in default to suffer RI for 3 months
4	Section 201 r/w 34 IPC	7 years RI and Rs.1,000/-fine in default to suffer RI for 3 months

          The appeals filed by the petitioners before the High Court and further appeals to the Supreme Court were also dismissed.

4. Admittedly, the petitioners have completed 14 years of imprisonment as mandated by Section 433-A, Cr.P.C. Under such circumstances, they made representations to the jail authorities under Rule 341 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 (for brevity “the Prison Rules”) for placing their case before the Advisory Board for premature release. The Advisory Board comprising (1) the District Collector, Thiruvallur, (2) the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, (3) the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur (4) the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison-I, Puzhal, Chennai, (5) The Regional Probation Officer, Chengalpet and Mr.A.V.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Non-Official Member, met and considered the case of the petitioners and gave a report dated 11.05.2012 to the Government recommending premature release of the petitioners. However, the first respondent, by the impugned orders, rejected the representation of the petitioners, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. Heard M/s. V. Balu, G. Ravikumar and V. Bhiman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

6. Before proceeding further in the matter, it is necessary to look into the ground of rejection of the petitioners' case which finds place in the impugned Government Orders. The reason for rejection of the petitioners' case in all the four impugned orders is one and the same. Hence, suffice it to extract the reasoning for rejection in any one of the four orders. Accordingly, the reasoning in G.O. (D) No.931, Home (Prisons-IV) Department dated 28.12.2015 is extracted hereunder:

“5. As per the rule 341(3) of Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, the case of the prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for more than three years or imprisonment for life for the offences among others mentioned below shall not be eligible for premature release under the Advisory Board Scheme.

Prisoners convicted of rape, forgery, dacoity, terrorist crimes, offences against the Stage and prisoners sentenced under Sections 224, 376, 396 to 400, 402, 467, 471, 472, 474, 489A, 489B and 489D of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act XLV of 1860).

6. The Government have carefully examined the recommendation of the