Judgment P.S.Mishra, J. 1. The petitioners have alleged that a direction of this Court in Cr. W.J.C. No. 78 of 1985 (R) has been violated by the condemner opposite party. 2. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced under Sec.302 read with Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code (the Penal Code) to rigorous imprisonment for life. Their appeal to this Court and prayer for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court also failed and they, thus, were made to serve out the sentence imposed upon them. After serving out for more than 11 years with the remission earned by them when they were not released from jail custody, they filed before this Court Cr. W.J.C. No. 78 of 1985 (R) Relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Niwas and Ors. V/s. Delhi Administration and Ors. -- it Was contended on their behalf that they were aged 14 to 15 years at the time of occurrence and about 20 years at the time of the judgment of the trial Court and so they deserved to be released from jail. 3. The learned Government Pleader No. 1 who appeared for the respondents, however, brought to the attention of this Court certain rules particularly Rule 5(2)(9) of tee Jail Manual Rules and contended that the Superintendent of Jail had requested vide office letter No. 1505 dated 21-6-1985 the Commissioner of the Division to fix a date for considering and recommending premature release of the petitioners to the Government of Bihar. After considering the competing contention, a Bench of this Court observed: Keeping in view the fact that the Commissioner of the Division has been requested to recommend the premature release of the petitioners to the Government and that the petitioners have reformed themselves in jail and their age being 18 and 23 years respectively at the time of their admission in jail and 14 and 15 years at the time of the occurrence, their further detention in jail would be detrimental to their interest of reformation. 4. The Court, after the said observation ordered: I direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with Rule 49 and 529 of the Jail Manual within two months from the date of receipt of this order. 4. The Court, after the said observation ordered: I direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with Rule 49 and 529 of the Jail Manual within two months from the date of receipt of this order. It is, however, made clear that the authorities concerned will dispose of the base of the petitioners within the period stipulated above failing which it would be deemed in the eye of law that the prayer of the petitioners have been allowed. 5. When the said direction was not complied and as a consequedence of non-consideration of the ease of the petitioners within two months from the date of the receipt of the order, it was realised by the petitioners that they had. to be released as their prayer stood allowed by the Court, for their release forthwith, the petitioners filed an application in Cr. W.J.C. No. 78/85 (R) for a direction to the respondents to release them forthwith as also a separate application seeking action against the opposite party in Original Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4/86 (R) for contempt of this Court. Contention which was not raised on behalf of the respondents, however, emerged when (he Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case was placed for admission before a Bench of this Court on 10-4-1986. It is observed in the order of the said date that this Court in Cr. W.J.C. No. 78/85 (R), on 9-10-1985, gave direction to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with Rules 49 and 529 of the Bihar Jail Manual within two months from the date of receipt of the order in question failing which it would be deemed in the eye of law that the prayer of the petitioners for premature release had been allowed, but, unfortunately the attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Umesh Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar 1984 PLJR 724 wherein it has been pointed out that Rule 529 of the Bihar Jail Manual is not wholly identical to the rules in Punjab Jail Manual which was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Niwas and Ors. V/s. Delhi Administration (supra). V/s. Delhi Administration (supra). Admitting the application for hearing the Bench observed: At the time of hearing it shall be considered whether it was obligatory on the opposite party to release the petitioners in view of the order passed in the earlier writ application, although the petitioners have not completed the period of 14 years of actual detention. 6. Although the matter can be disposed of in terms of the direction of this Court in Cr. W.J.C. No. 78/85 (R) and the contents of the petition showing cause on behalf of the opposite party, since a Bench of this Court, at the admission of Original Cr. Misc. application, has observed that besides considering whether there has been any contempt or not, the Court shall also consider whether it was obligatory on the part of the opposite party to release the petitioners or not, some consideration of the relevant rules and the law stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Niwas and Ors. V/s. Delhi Administration and Ors. (supra) and by the Full Bench of this Court in the case Umesh Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar (supra) is necessary. 7. One can find at a glance that the Supreme Court was not concerned with a case like that of the petitioners. The rule of the Punjab Jail Manual which they considered, was a different one with which this Court was concerned. Considering the judgment in the case of Sri Niwas and Ors. V/s. Delhi Administration and others (supra) Sandhawalia, C.J. speaking for the Full Bench, has marked the circumference of the Punjab rule and has said that the grant or refusal of remission is entirely in the discretion of the State Government, Then clearly enough mandamus to exercise such a power is uncalled for. This Court has said that mandamus can only lie to enforce a clear statutory duty imposed by law with a corresponding right in the petitioners to claim the same. 8. One can hardly find anything to question the wisdom in the statement of law by the Full Bench of this Court which is a reiteration of the well-known principle that a mandamus is issued to enforce a clear and statutory duty imposed by law with a corresponding right in the aggrieved person to claim the same. But, along with the said rule yet another rule is also well-recognised. But, along with the said rule yet another rule is also well-recognised. No doubt, a statutory functionary may accept or deny a claim which is a matter of its discretion, but it has a statutory duty to consider the claim and then to decide eithers to accept or to deny. Refusal to exercise discretion is one thing and after exercising discretion refusal of the claim is another thing. A rule of law that a mandamus is issued ex-debito justice is invoked in a situation like one in hand when a statutory authority which has the power to determine whether a certain person be set to liberty or be in detention declines to exercise its discretion to consider the claim of the person suffering incarceration. 9. The Bench that disposed of Cr. W.J.C. No. 78/85 (R) was evidently not unaware of Rules 49 and 529 of the Jail Manual and they accordingly have not recognised the right of the petitioners for their release without consideration by the competent authority whether to remit the sentence and release them prematurely or not. She Bench directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with Rules 49 and 529 of the Jail Manual within two months. The time limit fixed for the consideration of their case was not at all unreasonable. After all, the competent authority was required to consider the vital question concerning the liberty of the petitioners. Why should the authorities who are required to review periodically whether a certain person should be released from prison or not, meet at such intervals which are prescribed by law. Why should a Court not take cognizance of the fact that by dereliction for whatever reason and not reviewing the case of the prisoners whether they should be prematurely released or not they failed performing their statutory duty. To both these questions, in our view, the answer shall be against the authorities and in favour of the liberty of the prisoners. 10. To both these questions, in our view, the answer shall be against the authorities and in favour of the liberty of the prisoners. 10. Rule 529 of the Bihar Jail Manual, as amended, says: The sentences of long-term prisoners including those sentenced to transportation for life, or for a definite term, can also be revised by Government at the recommendation of the Boards of Visitors and the following orders have been issued by the Government on the subject: (i) Long term prisoners are confined in the central jail at Buxar, Bhagalpur, Gaya and Hazaribagh and in the district jail at Cuttack and the Boards of Visitors of those jails only are empowered to make recommendations for the revision of sentences of prisoners. (ii) The Board of Visitors shall consider only such cases as are placed before it by the Superintendent of jail, and the case of no prisoner shall be sent up by the Superintendent unless he has served half the period of his sentence in the case of a non-habitual prisoner and two-thirds of it in the case of a habitual prisoner. This period will include the remission which the prisoner has earned, but not the remission granted in celebration of public events. The minimum period served, including remission, must not be less than five years. But the cases of prisoners sentenced to transportation for life shall be placed by the Superintendent before the Board after they have served 11 years including remissions earned-provided their crime was not of a calculated or deliberate nature and was not carried out with great brutality and their conduct in jail has been almost uniformly good. 11. In the petition showing cause the opposite party has stated that the case of the petitioners could not be placed before the Board of Visitors as the constitution of Board of Visitors itself suffered due to failure to appoint the Board in accordance with the provisions in Chapter IV of the Bihar Jail Manual. Since the Board has not, as required under the rules, met until now, the case of the petitioners has not been considered and thus the Superintendent of the Jail is in a helpless situation as he has no authority to himself decide whether to release the petitioners prematurely or not. Since the Board has not, as required under the rules, met until now, the case of the petitioners has not been considered and thus the Superintendent of the Jail is in a helpless situation as he has no authority to himself decide whether to release the petitioners prematurely or not. The opposite party has not disputed that the petitioners qualify for consideration of their case by the Board referred to in Rule 529 and it appears that the fact that the petitioners have served 11 years of imprisonment including remission earned and there is nothing to show that the offences committed by them were of a calculated or deliberate nature or were carried out in great brutality. There is also nothing on the record to show that their conduct in jail has not been uniformal (sic) good. In terms of the said rule, the petitioners most likely at the Board meeting at schedule time by the Statute could have been released from custody. 12. On the facts placed before us, however, it cannot be said that the opposite party has wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court and/or by not following the direction of this Court he has committed such wrong that we should have sternly dealt with. At the same time, however, we have to take notice of the failure of the State Government in appointing the Board and/or the Board in meeting at schedule by the rule and consider the case of the petitioners Since time limit fixed by this Court and even the rules have not been observed by the Board or the Govt. of the State as observed by this Court, the petitioners claim has to be allowed. In Cr. W.J.C. No. 78/85 (R) this Court clearly meant that, in case, the petitioners claim were not considered in accordance with Rule 529, they would be deemed to have been allowed Although no mandamus was issued in express words, as a consequence of the failure of the authorities concerned in acting in accordance with Rule 529 this Court has, in its judgment, clearly spelled out a mandamus. 13. In our view it is a fit case in which the mandamus should issue ex debito justkie. As a result of our discussion above, we hereby direct that the opposite party shall release the petitioners forthwith. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus accordingly issue. 13. In our view it is a fit case in which the mandamus should issue ex debito justkie. As a result of our discussion above, we hereby direct that the opposite party shall release the petitioners forthwith. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus accordingly issue. Rule of contempt, however, is discharged.