G. P. MATHUR, J. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying that the order dated 6- 9-93 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued directing the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid order. 2. The petitioner Ranjeet was con victed in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 1974 by learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar under Section 302, IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the judgment and order dated 9-7-1974. After he had undergone sentence for sometime, he moved an application for pre- mature release under the U. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938. This application was considered by the State Government and was postponed for observing his con duct further in jail. The petitioner then filed a writ petition No. 1517 of 1983 before the Supreme Court praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to the State Government to consider and dispose of his application for release after the expiry of postponed period. The petition was dis posed of by the Supreme Court by judg ment and order dated 2-1-1984. 3. After few months the petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that his application for pre-mature release had not been disposed of by the Government in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court and, therefore, he is en titled for being released on bail. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, granted bail to the applicant by the order dated 15-10-84, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. 4. On 6-9-1993 learned IIIrd Addi tional Sessions Judge sent a letter to the S. S. P. Muzaffarnagar requesting him to get the accused of S. T No. 45 of 1974 arrested as the period of bail had expired. It is this order which has been impugned in the present writ petition. 5. The counter-affidavit filed by the State on 16-12-1994 (sworn on 14-12-1994) shows that on 10-12- 1984 the State Government passed the following order on the application for pre-mature release moved by the petitioner: "boards recommendation not accepted. Release rejected. Prisoner may apply afresh after six months (without remission) and there after his case will be reconsidered with fresh opinion of District Magistrate. Release rejected. Prisoner may apply afresh after six months (without remission) and there after his case will be reconsidered with fresh opinion of District Magistrate. " It is stated in paras 6 and 10 of the counter-affidavit that the jail superintendent hand written a letter to the District Magistrate to get the petitioners bail cancelled as his ap plication for pre-mature release had been rejected by the State Government on 10-12-1984. It is further stated that bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Addl. Sessions Judge. Thereafter Sri R. P. Singh, Illrd Addi tional Sessions Judge wrote a letter dated 6-9-1993 to get the petitioner arrested. Necessary warrants for this purpose were also sent. 6. Sri G. C. Saxena learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application for pre-mature release moved by the petitioner had not been finally rejected as it had been ordered to be recon sidered after six months and therefore the bail of the petitioner could not be canceled. The order passed by the State Government on 10-12-1984 clearly shows that the application for pre-mature release had been rejected. However further direc tion was issued that the same may be reconsidered after obtaining fresh opinion from the District Magistrate. The order of the State Government that the prayer made by the petitioner shall be recon sidered after he had undergone a further period of six months cannot be interpreted to mean that his application for pre-ma ture release had not been "rejected," It does not amount to mere postponement of the consideration of the application. An identical matter concerning a life convict, who had also applied for being released under U. P. Prisoners Release on Proba tion Act, 1938 and in whose case also a similar direction had been issued for grant of bail and for cancellation thereof in the event of his application being ultimately rejected, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Criminal Misc. Peti tion No. 503/93 in Writ Petition (Criminal)No. 1334/91 (Luxmi Prasad v. State of U. P.) decided on 26-4-1994 and it was observed as follows: "the representation of the petitioner for pre-mature release was in fact, considered on 23rd December, 1983 and his prayer for imme diate release was rejected. Peti tion No. 503/93 in Writ Petition (Criminal)No. 1334/91 (Luxmi Prasad v. State of U. P.) decided on 26-4-1994 and it was observed as follows: "the representation of the petitioner for pre-mature release was in fact, considered on 23rd December, 1983 and his prayer for imme diate release was rejected. The purport of the decision appears to have been that the immedi ate premature release was not justified but the matter might be taken up after the expiry of a further time of five more years of the sentence. The clear implication was that the petitioner should continue to serve the sentence. " Therefore, the contention that the application for pre-mature release has not been rejected by the State Government cannot be accepted. 7. There is a good ground why the State Government while declining to grant the prayer of a convict for pre-ma ture release, directs for re-consideration of the application after he has undergone sentence for some more years instead or passing an order of rejection. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 9 of U. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 the State Government has made U. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Rules. The relevant part of sub-rule (c) of Rule 3 of the Rules reads as under: "rule 3. The following classes of the prisoners shall not be released under the Act: (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . (c) those whose application for release other than an application under Section 8 of the Act, were on previous occasion rejected by the State Government. " This provision shows that if an ap plication for pre-mature release filed by a convict is rejected once, he cannot be released on probation under the Act at a later stage. Therefore, it is in the interest of the prisoner himself that the applica tion should not be finally rejected as in that event he will never be able to get the benefit of the Act. On the facts and cir cumstances of the present case, we are clearly of the opinion that the order dated 10-12-1984 passed by the State Govern ment clearly amounted to rejection of the application moved by the petitioner. On the facts and cir cumstances of the present case, we are clearly of the opinion that the order dated 10-12-1984 passed by the State Govern ment clearly amounted to rejection of the application moved by the petitioner. 8, Shri G. C. Saxena has submitted that no order for cancelling the bail of the petitioner has been passed by the learned Session Judge and, therefore, he could not send letter to the District Magistrate as king him to arrest the petitioner. In this connection, it may be mentioned that the petitioners conviction had become final and there is no provision of law under which a convict may be granted bail when his conviction is not under challenge before any court of law. The petitioner was granted bail in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 2-1-1984 only on the ground that his application for pre-ma ture release had not been considered by the State Government within the time fixed. Subsequent thereto the application was considered and was rejected by the State Government on 10-12-1984. After this order the petitioner was not entitled to remain on bail, and it was perfectly open to the State Government to forthwith move an application for cancellation of his bail. From the material on record, it is not clear as to why no such application was moved for several years and the authorities of the State Government woke up only in 1993. In this present writ petition, an order was passed on 8-12-1993 staying the arrest of the petitioner till 29-4-1994 and the stay order was extended till 11-7-1994. There after the stay order was not extended. However, supplementary affidavit filed by Babu Ram, Dy. S. P. Muzaffarnagar shows that inspite of repeated efforts, the petitioner could not be arrested as he had absconded. Ultimately the petitioner has been taken into custody on 28-9-1997. As shown earlier, the petitioner was granted bail as his application for pre-mature release had not been considered by the State Government and once that applica tion was considered and rejected, he had no legal claim to remain on bail. Though the petitioners application was rejected by thestate Government on 10-12-1984 he has been actually taken into custody al most after 13 years on 28-9-1997. Though the petitioners application was rejected by thestate Government on 10-12-1984 he has been actually taken into custody al most after 13 years on 28-9-1997. Even assuming that the contention of the petitioners Counsel that there is no specific order cancelling his bail (which fact has not been established) is correct the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The plea raised is highly technical one and on the facts and circumstances of the present case, no such writ can be issued. 9. Learned Counsel had also urged that the order of the State Government rejecting the application for pre-mature release moved by the petitioner is not in accordance with law. In this connection, it may be pointed out that this order has not been challenged by the petitioner and the writ petition has been filed claiming a dif ferent relief. In fact in the writ petition there is no averment regarding the rejec tion of his. application for pre-mature release nor a copy of the said order has been filed. After the aforesaid fact was stated HI the counter-affidavit, the petitioner has not sought any amendment of the writ petition. It is not possible to entertain the submission of the learned Counsel regarding the validity or other wise of the State Governments order dated 10-12-1984. 10. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .