JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the father Kapoor Singh against the State of Rajasthan, IG (Prisons) Rajasthan and Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur respondents for issue of a writ directing premature release of his son Darshan Singh presently serving a life term in the Open Air Jail, Sanganer. 2. It is the common case of the parties that the said Darshan Singh after he was sentenced to imprisonment for life for commission of an offence under section 302 IPC some time in the year 1982 had served fourteen years of imprisonment by the time his case came up for consideration for premature release before the Advisory Board in its meeting held on 18.12.96 when, as the reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police Alwar were against him, the Advisory Board did not recommend his premature release leading to the filing of this writ petition. 3. The petitioner has stated in his petition that though his son the said Darshan Singh had served out more than fourteen years of sentence, and during this period he had been released on parole for varying periods eight times, three of which were regular paroles as detailed in para 6 of this writ petition and though keeping in view his excellent record and good behaviour he had been shifted to the Open Air Jail Sanganer some time in 1995, which was a half way house to freedom, the Advisory Board all the same did not recommend his premature release so in these circumstances as there was no reason, much less cogent reason, for not prematurely releasing him the act of the respondents in not prematurely releasing him was untenable hence a writ deserves to be issued for his premature release by this Court. 4. The respondents have contested the writ petition. In their reply the respondents, while admitting that the said Darshan Singh who had served fourteen years imprisonment by Dec. 4. The respondents have contested the writ petition. In their reply the respondents, while admitting that the said Darshan Singh who had served fourteen years imprisonment by Dec. 1996 had been released on parole eight times and his shifting to Open Air Jail Sanganer in 1995, have asserted that in view of the adverse reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police Alwar annexures R1 & R2 the Advisory Board had not recommended premature release adding that out of those eight paroles only two were regular paroles and the rest emergency paroles and that the third regular parole has been allowed to him by the District Parole Committee, Alwar for forty days vide an order dated 16.5.199^ in compliance of which he was released on parole on 23.5.199 . According to the respondents he had no right of release and had only a right to have his case considered for premature release and it was the State Government alone which in exercise of the power conferred by Section 432 Cr.PC. can order his premature release. 5. The argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the said Darshan Singh had been released on parole as many as eight times and had in addition been shifted to the Open Air Jail Sanganer in 1995 the stereo-typed adverse reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police Alwar annexures R1 & R2 carried no weight and these should not have weighed with the Advisory Board which solely on their basis did not recommend premature release and that keeping in mind that the said Darshan Singh had since been allowed still another parole for forty days in May, 1997 he deserves to be prematurely released by this Court. He has cited the decision reported as Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others, Rajasthan Criminal Cases 1995 page 622 by a D.B. of this Court and another unreported decision dated 2.4.92 of a S.B. of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5123/91 where premature release was ordered by this Court in support of his submission that this Court can order premature release. We are afraid we are in respectful disagreement with these decisions as under section 432 & 433 Cr.PC. it is only the State Government which by suspending/remitting/commuting of sentence is vested with power of such premature release. We are afraid we are in respectful disagreement with these decisions as under section 432 & 433 Cr.PC. it is only the State Government which by suspending/remitting/commuting of sentence is vested with power of such premature release. As per rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 1985 as well it is the State Government.it which can order such premature release. 6. The case reported is Shri Niwas and Others v. Delhi Administration and Others AIR 1982 SC 1391 where the apex Court issued mandamus directing premature release proceeded on its own peculiar facts and is inapplicable to the instant case. 7. The Apex Court in the decision reported as State of Punjab v. Kesar Singh 1996(5) SCC 495 , cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of his argument that it is the State Government alone which can order premature release, has held that the direction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana prematurely releasing the respondents (in that case) could not have been passed and was illegal and that at most what the High Court could do was to issue a direction to consider the case for premature release as the right to exercise the power under Section 433 Cr.PC. vests in the State Government and has to be exercised by the State Government in accordance with the rules and established principles. Thus it is not for this Court to order premature release and the most this Court in such cases can do is to order that the case be considered for premature release. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the next meeting of the Advisory Board is due to be held shortly, may be as early as towards the end of this month, that directions have been issued to place the case of said Darshan Singh for premature release before the Advisory Board and that fresh reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police Alwar have been sent for to this end. 9. We have carefully perused the reports of the District Magistrate and superintendent of Police Alwar annexures R1 and R2 which are indeed stereo-typed and more or less reproduce the wording of rule (d)(i) to (v) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules 1958. 9. We have carefully perused the reports of the District Magistrate and superintendent of Police Alwar annexures R1 and R2 which are indeed stereo-typed and more or less reproduce the wording of rule (d)(i) to (v) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules 1958. There is no mention in the reports of the basis that had led these authorities to form their opinions against premature release. We, therefore, direct that the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police Alwar should look/inquire into the matter and then & only then submit their fresh factual reports containing the basis for their opinions to the Advisory Board which at its next meeting to be held in the immediate future will consider the case of Darshan Singh for premature release and pass necessary orders in accordance with the Rules, 1985. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition disposed of accordingly. *******