JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner in this petition' prosecuted for the offence of murder and was taken in custody and jail on September 24, 1980. The trial resulted in his conviction and he was sentenced to death. This judgment was delivered on July 15, 1982. In appeal, the sentence was reduced to imprisonment of life on May 20, 1983. Thus, according to the petitioner, he is in jail since September 24, 1980. He, therefore, applied for Parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners' Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called 'Rules of 1958'). 2. That after about 11 years the mother of the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 4407/91 before this Court. It was decided on 6.9.91 and a direction was issued directing the jail authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of permanent parole. After this order was made, the matter was again considered by the Director General of Prisons and the application was rejected on the ground that it is impermissible to do so u/Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. In the present petition, the petitioner has impugned this order on the ground that the Provisions of Section 433-A are not attracted in the present case. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, under Rule 9 of the 'Rules of 1958', his case is liable to be recommended to the Government through the Inspector General of Prisons for permanent release on bail, on such condition as deemed fit by the Superintendent, Jails. The learned Counsel submits that the respondents were wrong in applying Provisions of Section 433-A in this case. 5. Learned Counsel drew my attention to the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958 and contended that shortening of sentence or release under those rules is different from grant of permanent Parole under Rule 9 of the 'Rules of 1958'. He submits that there is distinction between shortening of sentence, premature release and Parole. It is obvious that this distinction was ignored by the jail authorities while rejecting the application vide. Annexure 2. It must be borne in mind that release on permanent Parole is different from permanent release as certain restrictions and conditions are liable to be imposed on person who is released on parole and who is expected to undergo the balance sentence in the event of his committing fresh crime. Annexure 2. It must be borne in mind that release on permanent Parole is different from permanent release as certain restrictions and conditions are liable to be imposed on person who is released on parole and who is expected to undergo the balance sentence in the event of his committing fresh crime. Such restrictions are not to be imposed in cases where the sentence is reduced or pre-mature release is ordered. Keeping this distinction in mind, the respondents were liable to consider on merits, the application of the petitioner. 6. Rule 9 itself provides that where such recommendation is not made, the convict is eligible for fourth Parole in the event of his conduct in the early Parole being good. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on an unreported case of the Supreme Court Hussain Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2381-82/1983 decided on July 25, 1983) and prayed that in view of this judgment, this Court should direct permanent Parole to the petitioner. No doubt, the Supreme Court has, in that case, granted permanent Parole to the appellant before the Supreme Court. However, there is a marked difference between the two cases as in that case Supreme Court had directed the Government to consider the matter and was not considered by the State. 7. In the present case, no such direction was ever issued to the State. In any event, the power to release on Parole is basically vested in the Government of Rajasthan. There has been no application of mind either by the Director General of Prisons, to the application of the petitioner for grant of permanent Parole and it will not be proper, therefore, for this Court to exercise jurisdiction for granting permanent Parole vested in the State by itself. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the State contended that in view of Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the application of the petitioner was rightly rejected as he had not completed 14 years of imprisonment, as contemplated in the Rules. He placed reliance on Ashok Kumar alias Golu v. Union of India & Others, (1991) 3SCC 498) and contended that in view of the Provisions , of Section 433-A, the application was rightly rejected. 9. He placed reliance on Ashok Kumar alias Golu v. Union of India & Others, (1991) 3SCC 498) and contended that in view of the Provisions , of Section 433-A, the application was rightly rejected. 9. However, the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar's case (supra) will not apply in the instant case, because that judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, interpreting Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 1958. As observed earlier, there is a distinction in premature release and release on Parole. The judgment is, therefore, of no assistance to the Government. 10. The order, Annexure 2, in the view that I have taken, is liable to be quashed and it is hereby quashed.. A writ of mandamus will issue directing that Respondents 2 and 3 to make appropriate recommendations for considering grant of permanent Parole to the petitioner by the State of Rajasthan, as he is eligible to be considered for such permanent Parole on the interpretation of Rule 9, as has been made above. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also prayed that pending such considering by the State, his case may be considered for grant of 4th Parole. The petitioner was released on Parole on three occasions and no adverse report of any kind, thereafter, finds place on the record of the case. It is, obviously, a fit case for grant of fourth parole. In the circumstances, the respondents No. 2 and 3 are also directed to release the petitioner on Parole on 40 days from the date of the receipt of this order by the jail authorities and the application of the petitioner for grant of permanent parole, in the light of the observations made above, shall be decided within 40 days.Petition allowed. *******