JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to issue writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing impugned order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Principal Secretary Home for Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, whereby case of the petitioner for pre-mature release, as per the Policy dated 08.07.1991 (Annexure P-1) has been rejected. Petitioner further prays for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents to release him, as he has already undergone sentence required under the Policy in question.

2. It is undisputed that petitioner was convicted vide judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated 04.05.2005 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in a case arising out of FIR No.186 dated 21.09.2001 under Sections 302, 342 and 201/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Appeal against said judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure P-2). Presently, petitioner is confined in Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh.

3.1 The contention of the petitioner is that as per Policy dated 08.07.1991 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, applicable to U.T., Chandigarh, issued under Article 72/161 of the Constitution of India, he is required to undergo actual sentence of 14 years and total sentence of 20 years by including remission period, whereas petitioner has already undergone the actual sentence of 17 years, 06 months and 23 days and with remission, the total sentence is 25 years, 08 months and 20 days, as per the custody certificate dated 11.01.2023.

3.2 Petitioner's application for premature release was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Hisar, who recommended his release vide order dated 26.04.2017 (Annexure P-3). Said order was referred to learned District and Sessions Judge, U.T., Chandigarh, as per the provisions of Section 432(2) Cr.P.C., who opined that petitioner being aggressive and unsympathetic person, it would be pain to the society to release him and so, his premature release cannot benefit anyone and so he was not entitled for premature release. By relying upon the said opinion of learned District and Sessions Judge, U.T., Chandigarh, the Home Department, Chandigarh (Administration) declined the application vide order dated 03.10.2017, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition bearing CWP-10651-2018 (O&M).

3.3 This Court held that merely on the account of the opinion of the District and Sessions Judge concerned, the petitioner's case could not be rejected for premature release, as it was only one of the circumstances to be considered and not binding on the State. As such, order dated 03.10.2017 of the Administrator of Union Territory, Chandigarh was quashed and the respondents-authorities were directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner, vide order dated 17.12.2018 (Annexure P-4) by this Court.

3.4 However, without applying judicious mind and by acting in the mechanical manner and again by solely relying upon the opinion of the District and Sessions Judge, U.T., Chandigarh and ignoring the findings of this Court, the case of the petitioner for premature release was again rejected, vide order dated 29.01.2019 (Annexure P-5), compelling the petitioner to file another writ petition bearing No.CRWP-402-2020. During pendency of this petition, respondents-authorities, in a haphazard manner passed a fresh order dated 10.08.2021, rendering CRWP-402-2020 as infructuous and so, the same was disposed of as such vide order dated 22.09.2021 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner earlier challenged the impugned order dated 10.08.2021 by filing CRWP-3172-2022, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure P-8).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 10.08.2021 is liable to be quashed, as it h