By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and perused the record.

The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :

(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 25.1.2010 and 1.2.2010 so far it relates to the petitioners accordingly.

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the petitioners forthwith in view of the judgment and order dated 24.7.2004 passed by the Apex Court in case of Bhagwan Das and others.

(c) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(d) award cost of the writ petition to the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on 29.11.1975 in S.T. No. 271/73, under Sections 302/149 IPC. The appeal preferred by the petitioners were dismissed by the High Court, which was affirmed by the Apex Court. The petitioners have served more than 17 years sentence without remission and they have served about 27 years sentence with remissions. The Government Order dated 11.1.2000 was issued, which was subsequently, amended by a subsequent Government Order dated 25.1.2000 . In pursuance of that order those convicts, who were more than 60 years of age were released including the petitioners. That order was challenged before the High Court in the writ petition and the aforesaid Government Orders were quashed by the Division Bench of this High Court. In case of Mirza Mohammad Husayn v. State of U.P. and others, 2002(1)JIC 342 (All), where there was a direction by the High Court that those convicts, who were released, were required to surrender to serve out the remaining sentence. The petitioners instead of surrendering to serve out the sentence filed a writ petition No. 1933 of 2002 and Writ Petition No. 1692 of 2002, however, both the writ petitions were dismissed. Interim protection was given in Writ Petition No. 1692 of 2003 since the judgment in case of Mirza Mohammad Husyn (Supra) was challenged before the Apex Court wherein the interim protection was given to the convict, who have actually served more than 40 years of sentence. Thereafter, the special leave petition filed against the aforesaid judgment was finally decided on 24.7.2004 and the direction was issued that those prisoners, who had actually served more than 14 years sentence should be released forthwith. He further submitted that the petitioners were taken into custody on 1.2.2010 and they are confined in Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad. The case of the petitioners are fully covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Bhagwan Das and others. He further stated that on 25.1.2010 a Govt. Order was issued to take those prisoners in custody, who were released in pursuance of the Govt. Orders dated 11.1.2000 and 25.1.2000. Thereafter Superintendent of Police, District Kaushambi directed Station Officer to arrest the petitioners and subsequently they were arrested on 1.2.2010. Since then they are confined in jail.

3. He further submitted that in view of Section 433(A) Cr.P.C. and in view of provisions of U.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act and Rules framed therein the minimum sentence which required to be served by the life convict is 14 years, and both the petitioners have served more than 14 years of actual imprisonment. Hence they are entitled for premature release.

4. The learned AGA opposed the aforesaid prayer on the ground that as far as the pre-mature is concerned, when the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment they have to serve out the sentence for remaining period of their life unless the order for pre-mature release is passed by the appropriate Government.

5. It is a matter of pre-mature release after conviction. The criminal appeal was also dismissed by the High Court and the same was affi