S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these writ applications involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) BOTH the petitioners are life convicts. ( 3 ) SHRI Sukumar Singh was convicted for commission of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by a judgment dated 24-4-1980 passed by 7th Bench. City Sessions Court at Calcutta. He is at present lodged at Alipore Jail. An appeal taken from the said judgment by the petitioner bearing Crl. Appeal No. 191/80 was dismissed by a judgment dated 18-3-1982 by this Court. The petitioner is in custody on and from 24-4-1980. The particulars of the serving period of the petitioner is as follows :-YEARS Month Days" (A) U. T. Period -- -- -- (B) Actual period from 24-04-80 to 10-11-95150616 (C) Demission earned upto 3rd Qr 95 i. e. 2049 days :050809 210225 ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, in terms of the West Bengal Jail Rules which form part of the West Bengal Jail Code read with Section 55 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 433 and 434 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he was entitled to be released from Jail. The petitioner has alleged that a few other life convicts who are similarly situated had been released under the said Rules. The names of such convicts are stated in paragraph 10 of the writ application which reads thus :- @43410. htm@ ( 5 ) THE petitioner Paran Naskar was convicted for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by a judgment dated 7-10-1980 passed in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1980 by the learned 13th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta. An appeal bearing No. Crl. Appln. 87/81 preferred by him was dismissed by this Court by a judgment dated 21-3-1984. An appeal bearing No. Crl. Appln. 87/81 preferred by him was dismissed by this Court by a judgment dated 21-3-1984. The particulars of the serving period of the said petitioner in jail is as follows :-YEARS Month Days (A) U. T. Period set off from 29-4-80 to 6-10-80000508 (B) Actual period from 7-10-80 to 18-04-1985140612 (C) Remission earned upto 1st Quarter 1995 04 10 25 ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, in terms of the West Bengal Jail Rules which form part of the West Bengal Jail Code read with Section 55 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 433 and 434 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he is entitled to be released from Jail. ( 7 ) BOTH the petitioners filed applications before the competent authority for the said purpose and their names had been recommended by the Jail authorities. Admittedly the Governor of West Bengal in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Art. 161 of Constitution of India rejected the case of the petitioners. ( 8 ) MR. Surajit Samanta, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the instant case the petitioners' application should be considered on their own merit by the State Government in terms of the provision of the Jail Manual. The learned counsel submits that in the instant case even Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable. The learned Counsel contends that the petitioners are undergoing sentence passed against them in a single trial for several offences and in that view of the matter Sections 55/57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also applicable. As regards the statement made in affidavit-in-opposition the learned Counsel submits that the rejection of the prayer by the Governor does not stand as a bar in exercise of the power of the State Government in the light of the recommendation made by the Jail Authorities. ( 9 ) IN support of his aforementioned contention reliance has been placed in Ramu alias Ramoo Mahato alias Teghari Mahato v. Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal reported in 1995 (1) Cal HN 359 and Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Charanjit Kaur reported in 1996 Cal Cri LR (SC) 133. Rules 591 (1), 591 (4) of West Bengal Jail Code read thus :-" (1 ). Rules 591 (1), 591 (4) of West Bengal Jail Code read thus :-" (1 ). Every case in which a convict has undergone in a Jail or Jails period of continued detention amounting together with remission earned, if any, to fourteen years shall be submitted within a month of completion of such period by the Superintendent of the Jail in which the convict is for the time being detained, through the Inspector-General, for the orders of the State Government of his release. (4) In considering the cases of prisoners submitted to under sub-rules (1) and (2), the State Government shall take into consideration (i) the circumstances in each case; (ii) the character of the convict's crime, (iii) his conduct in prison and (iv) the probability of his reverting to criminal habits of instigating others to commit crime. If the State Government is satisfied that the prisoner can be released without any danger to the society or to the public it may take steps for issue of orders for his release under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. "rule 591 (29) provides for release on completion of 20 years' imprisonment including remission which read thus :-"every case in which a convict, who has not received the benefit of any of the foregoing rules, is about to complete a period of 20 years of continued detention including remission earned, if any, shall be submitted three months before such completion by the Superintendent of the Jail in which the convict is for the time being detailed, through the Inspector-General, for orders of the State Government. If the convict's jailrecords during the last three years of his detentions are found to be satisfactory the State Government may remit the remainder of his sentence." ( 10 ) IN view of the decision of this court in Teghari Mahato (1995 (1) Cal HN 359) (supra) the law in this regard is no longer res integra. If the convict's jailrecords during the last three years of his detentions are found to be satisfactory the State Government may remit the remainder of his sentence." ( 10 ) IN view of the decision of this court in Teghari Mahato (1995 (1) Cal HN 359) (supra) the law in this regard is no longer res integra. This court upon taking into consideration various decisions of the Supreme Court of India, namely, Maru Ram v. Union of India reported in AIR 1980 SC 2147 : (1980 Cri LJ 1440), Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1961 (1) Cri LJ 736 : ( AIR 1961 SC 600 ), Ashok Kumar v. Union of India reported in AIR 1991 SC 1792 : (1991 Cri LJ 2483), Sri Niwas v. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1982 SC 1391 , Dinesh Chandra Jamnadas Gandhi v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1989 SC 1011 : (1989 Cri LJ 889), Mithu v. State of Punjab reported in (1983) 2 SCC 277 : (1983 Cri LJ 811) held :-"section 433a of the Code of Criminal Procedure not only excludes Section 472 but also subject operation of Section 433 (a) to serious restriction and also excludes all contrary prison rules. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that unless and until the sentence of the petitioner is remitted or commuted either in terms of Sections 432 and 433 of the Cr. P. C. the petitioner does not have any existing legal right to obtain a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to set him at liberty. P. C. the petitioner does not have any existing legal right to obtain a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to set him at liberty. "this court distinguished the decision of the Supreme Court in Surja Ram v. The State reported in 1963 (2) Cri LJ 396 : ( AIR 1963 Raj 202 ) and observed :-"keeping in view the fact that the concerned authority of the State of West Bengal is statutorily obliged to pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the letters of request sent by the Jail Authorities, in my opinion, interest of justice will be subserved if the Judicial Secretary, who admittedly, is the competent authority, is directed to consider the matter in accordance with law at an early date and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Jail Authorities are also hereby directed to send reports to the Judicial Secretary forthwith. " ( 11 ) THIS aspect of the matter has also been considered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Charanjit Kaur reported in 1996 Cal Crl LR (SC) 133 wherein it has been held :-"section 433 of the Code empowers the Government, in an appropriate case, without the consent of the person sentenced, to commute the sentence and to prematurely release the convict. Clause (b) thereof provides for a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or fine. Indisputably, she did not even complete 14 years which is a minimum mandatory sentence required to be served under the Code. At best the Court in an appropriate case, where the prisoner has served the mandatory minimum sentence, may only direct the appropriate Government to consider the communication of the sentence and prematurely release a particular convict. He can do no further. The Government would consider such direction based upon the conduct of the prisoner and other relevant circumstances and act upon it. He can do no further. The Government would consider such direction based upon the conduct of the prisoner and other relevant circumstances and act upon it. " ( 12 ) IN this view of the matter there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the State Government in exercise of its aforementioned power read with the relevant provision of the Jail Manual are statutorily obliged to consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view the recommendation made by the Jail Authority on their own merits. ( 13 ) WHILE passing an appropriate order in accordance with law, the State Government shall keep in mind the aforementioned provisions of the Jail Code. Such an order should be passed at an early date and preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. In the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.