JUDGMENT Satyabrata Sinha, J.: 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 s. 302 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code by a judgment dated 24.4.80 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 24.4.80. The particulars of the serving period of the petitioner is as follows:- Years Month Days "(a) D.T. period -- -- -- (b) Actual period from 24.04.80 to 10.11.95 15 06 16 (c) Remission earned upto 3rd Qr ' 95 i.e. 2049 days: 05 08 09 ---- ---- ---- 21 02 25 4. According to the petitioner, in terms of the West Bengal Jail Rules which form part of the West Bengal Jail Code read with s. 55 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 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:- Name Home Jail Memo No. Date of Release 1. Akil Ahamed 27094/27095 J dated 24.12.95 24.12.95 2. Moktar Ahamed 1044/1045 J dated 19.01.95. 25.01.95 3. Ezhar Ahamed 32003/3201 J dated 17.02.1995. 20.02.95 4. Burhan Ahmed 3196/3197 J dated 17.02.1995. 20.02.1995 5. Hyder Ali 3198/3199 J dated 20.2.1995. 20.02.1995 6. Jugal Kishore Sharma 16556/16557 J dated 08.09.1995. 08.09.1995 7. Lakshman Nayah 12147/12148 J dated 18.06.1995. 03.07.1995 8. Shyamal Ghosh 3348/3349 J dated 22.02.1995. 23.02.1995 9. Sahadev Pandit 17708/17709 J dated 11.10.1995. 12.10.1995 5. The petitioner Paran Naskar was convicted for commission of an offence under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code by a judgment dated 7.10.80 passed in Sessions Trial No.1 of 1980 by the learned 13th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta. An appeal bearing No. Crl. Appl. 87/81 preferred by him was dismissed by this court by a judgment dated 21.03.1984. An appeal bearing No. Crl. Appl. 87/81 preferred by him was dismissed by this court by a judgment dated 21.03.1984. The particulars of the serving period of the said petitioner in Jail is as follows:- Years Months Days (a) D.T. period set off from 29.04.80 to 6.10.80 00 05 08 (b) Actual period from 7.10.80 to 18.04.1995 14 06 12 (c) Remission earned upto 1st Quarter 1995 04 10 25 ---- ---- ---- 19 10 15 6. According to the petitioner, in terms of the West Bengal Jail Rules which form part of the West Bengal Jail Code read with s. 55 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 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 s. 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable. The learned Counsel contends that the petitioner are undergoing sentence passed against them in a single trial for several offences and in that view of the matter Ss. 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 @ Ramoo Mahato @ Teghari Mahato vs. Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 1995(1) CRN 359 and Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Charanjit Kaur, reported in 1996 Cal Cr. LR (SC) 133. 10. Rules 591(1), 591(4) of West Bengal Jail Code read thus :- "(1). LR (SC) 133. 10. Rules 591(1), 591(4) of West Bengal Jail Code read thus :- "(1). Every case in which a convict has undergone in a Jailor 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 for his release. (4) In considering the cases of prisoners submitted to under sub-r. (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 s. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898." Rule 591(29) provides for release on completion of 20 years' imprisonment including remission which reads 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 the 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 detained, through the Inspector-General, for orders of the State Government. If the convict's jail records during the last three years of his detentions are found to be satisfactory the State Government may remit the remainder of his sentence." 11. In view of the decision of this court in Teghari Mahato (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 vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1980 SC 2147 , Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1961(1) Cr.L.J. 736, Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1792 , Sri Niwas & Ors. This court upon taking into consideration various decisions of the Supreme Court of India, namely, Maru Ram vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1980 SC 2147 , Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1961(1) Cr.L.J. 736, Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1792 , Sri Niwas & Ors. vs. Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1982 SC 1391 , Dinesh Chandra Samnadas Gandhi vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1011 , Mithu vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1993(2) SCC 277 held :- "Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure not only exclude s. 472 but also subjects operation of s. 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 Ss. 432 and 433 of the Cr. P. Code 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". 12. This court distinguished the decision of the Supreme Court in Surja Ram vs. The State, reported in 1963(2) Crl. L.J. 396 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 s. 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 sub-served 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 a copy of this order. The Jail Authorities are also hereby directed to send reports to the Judicial Secretary forthwith". 13. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Charanjit Kaur, reported in 1996 Cal Cr. 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. 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." 14. 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 of their own merits. 15. 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. Disposed of with directions on State Government.