JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making prayer for setting aside the order dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure P-5), passed by the respondent No. 1-Secretary, Department of Homes, Chandigarh Administration, whereby, the case of the petitioner for premature release, as per the policy dated 08.07.1991 (Annexure P-2), as issued by the Govt. of Punjab and applicable to U.T., Chandigarh, had been declined. He has also made prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents to release him on the ground that as per conditions of the aforementioned policy, he has already undergone his sentence.

2. As submitted in the petition, the petitioner had been held guilty and convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), vide judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 31.01.2003, passed in case arising out of FIR No. 119 dated 05.05.1999, registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Sector 11 (West), Chandigarh, and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The petitioner had filed an appeal before this Court against his conviction, which had been dismissed, vide judgment dated 23.02.2015 passed in CRA-D-166-DB-2003.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per custody certificate dated 20.11.2024, the petitioner had undergone the actual sentence of 15 years, 04 months and 17 days and after including the remission and excluding the period of parole, he had undergone sentence of 20 years, 01 month and 26 days. The petitioner had approached respondent No. 3 several times for initiating the case for his premature release but no action was taken thereon. Then, he filed a criminal writ petition, bearing number CRWP-1740-2023, before this Court raising his grievances, which was disposed of by this Court on 23.02.2023, thereby issuing a direction to the respondents to take a final decision within a period of two months on the case of the petitioner. Although his case was fully covered under the policy issued by the Govt. of Punjab on 08.07.1991 and as applicable to Union Territory, Chandigarh (Annexure P-2) and was liable to be extended benefit of premature release, especially in view of the fact that his case for premature release had been recommended by respondents No. 2 and 3, however, respondent No. 1 had dismissed his claim on the ground that he had not completed the minimum period of 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of imprisonment with remission and also on the basis of the report of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, which alone could not be a ground for rejecting the prayer as made by the petitioner. It is further argued that while passing the impugned order, respondent No. 1 was swayed by the report given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and did not consider the requirements necessary for arriving at this conclusion.

4. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that even the Presiding Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, while giving his report, did not take into account the factors laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India : (2000) 2 SCC 595. The further argument as raised by her is that the reason for rejection of the prayer of the petitioner on the basis of report submitted by the Presiding Judge was perfunctorily relied upon, though the same demonstrated a casual opinion. It is also submitted that over emphasis was given to the opinion of the Presiding Judge, thereby making the impugned order unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is also argued that the petitioner is aged about 67 years and is suffering from AIDS, which is a terminal disease. Therefore, it is urged that the present petition deserves to be allowed. To fortify his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has