ORDER :

N. Kirubakaran, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the rejection order passed by the 1st respondent dated 01.11.2019 by which the petitioner's claim for premature release was negatived and further sought for the direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.(Ms). No. 64, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018 and release the petitioner prematurely as he had already undergone 10 years of imprisonment which is a prerequisite for availing the benefit under the said G.O.

2. The petitioner was convicted in S.C. No. 82 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 r/w. 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment, respectively on 22.07.2005 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. The Appeal against the said judgment in Crl.A. No. 987 of 2006 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 03.10.2007 confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court and thus, the conviction attained finality.

3. When the petitioner has been undergoing imprisonment, on the occasion of Centenary birth anniversary of late Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G. Ramachandran and towards reformation and rehabilitation of the prisoners, the Government of Tamil Nadu through G.O.(Ms) No. 64, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018, granted premature release under Section 161 of Constitution of India to all the life convict prisoners who have completed atleast 10 years of actual imprisonment as on 25.02.2018. Since the respondent did not consider the petitioner's release as per the aforesaid G.O., the petitioner filed Habeas Corpus Petition in HCP. No. 1767 of 2018, praying for premature release as per G.O.(Ms) No. 64, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018. This Court by order dated 08.11.2018 directed the respondents to consider the representation given by the wife of the Petitioner as the petitioner had already completed sentence in respect of the case in which he was convicted for the offence under Section 397 IPC. Even after the direction given in HCP No. 1767 of 2018, dated 08.11.2018, the 1st respondent failed to comply with the directions, even though the Jail authorities recommended for the release of the petitioner herein, compelling the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings in Cont. P. No. 1007 of 2019. When the Contempt is pending, the 1st respondent by an order dated 01.11.2019 rejected the petitioner's claim for premature release. As the said order was passed, this court was pleased to close the Contempt Petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid rejection order. Thus, the said order of rejection is being challenged before this Court in the present Writ Petition.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent admitting the facts mentioned in the Writ Petition, however, contended that the petitioner was convicted in four cases. Moreover, the petitioner's claim for premature release cannot acceded as the ineligible Section 397 IPC has been invoked. As per the G.O.(Ms) No. 64, Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 01.02.2018, the prisoners who have been convicted for any of the 13 offences including rape, forgery, robbery (397, 398 IPC), dacoity, terrorist crimes are ineligible for premature release. Since the petitioner was convicted under Section 397 IPC for robbery, he is ineligible for premature release under the said G.O. It is also contended by the respondent that petitioner was first convicted in S.C. No. 7 of 2001 and 32 of 2001 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. While serving sentence in the abovesaid two cases, the petitioner was subsequently convicted in S.C. No. 82 of 2001 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The sentence imposed in S.C. No. 7 of 2001 and 32 of 2001 has to be completed by the petitioner first, to commence the life sentence awarded in S.C. No. 82 of 2001.