The right to remission is a legal right, but its grant is at the discretion of authorities, which must be exercised fairly without arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - The writ petitioner has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs) apart from seeking other reliefs for denial of remission as per his entitlement during his detention in Longtharai valley Sub Jail in connection with case No. ST 25(NT/D) of 2011 under section 376(1) IPC.

2. The factual context of the case is as under:

By judgment and order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmangar in ST 25(NT/D) of 2011, petitioner Dulal Sharma was sentenced to RI for 7 (seven) years and fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) and in default to SI for 3 (three) months for commission of offence punishable under section 376(1) IPC. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner challenged the judgment and order of his conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge, North Tripura by filing an appeal which was upheld by the Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 22.02.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2013. After his conviction by the trial Court, petitioner was put to prison to suffer the sentence w.e.f. 18.12.2012 and he was released from jail at the end of the term of his sentence on 17.04.2019. As per the release order, petitioner has been allowed remission for a period of 7 (seven) months 23 (twenty three) days which came to be 237 days. According to the petitioner, as per Jail Code he was entitled to remission for a period of 420 days and if he was granted remission for 420 days as per his entitlement he would have suffered detention under his conviction and sentence for a period of 2118 days instead of 2310 days. It is claimed by the petitioner that due to denial of appropriate remission to him, he has suffered detention for a longer period for which the petitioner approached this Court seeking the following directions:

'To issue Rule NISI calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari for declaring that the petitioner's ordinary remission register has been unauthorizedly tempered contrary to provisions of the Bengal Jail code 1937 resulting in illegal detention of the petitioner for 182 days beyond the period of his sentence computed after granting him ordinary remissions of 5 days each month as a admissible to him as per Rules of Bengal Jail Code 1937 and that the petitioner is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs for such illegal detention and causing mental agony and suffering caused with mala fide intention.

AND

As to why a writ of mandamus should not be issued directing the State respondents and respondent No.4 to pay compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs for such illegal detention.

AND

As to why a writ of certiorari should not be issued directing the respondent No.3 to produce the original remission card/roll/register, History tickets of the petitioner, register of convicted prisoner admitted into the jail, Kamjari register/work allotment and any other documents reflecting the initiation of a proceeding if any for bad conduct of the petitioner in hail for which his number of days of ordinary remission had been reduced from time to time, and any other relevant records relating to the petitioner for inspection of the Court for the period from December 2012 to April 2019.

AND

As to why any other writ/writs/orders shall not be issued for enforcement of constitutional, legal and fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 14, 20 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

AND

For any other writ/writs or directions may be issued so as to grant complete and adequate relief to the petitioner as Your Lordship deem fit proper.'

3. Affidavit in opposition on behalf of respondent N