JUDGMENT K.J. ROHEE, J.:- By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction to respondent no. l/State to reconsider his case for premature release from the prison. 2. Amongst several other offences, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 3(2)(ii) of the TADA Act, 1987 and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life by the Designated Court for Greater Bombay, in TADA Special Case No.2 of 1989 in February, 1993. The allegations against the petitioner were that on 25-3-1988 around 01.45 hrs. when the crew members of Alitalia Airlines who had arrived from Singapore to Bombay by flight No. 1361 were boarding luxury coach at Sahar International Airport, Bombay, the petitioner entered the coach armed with submachine pistol and hand grenades. The petitioner lobbed the hand grenades in the coach and fired with the sub-machine pistol at the crewmembers and the driver of the coach. The police sub inspector, who was on duty, apprehended the petitioner. The petitioner was prosecuted and convicted as stated earlier. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Supreme Court was dismissed. 3. The petitioner is the Lebanon National and is Palestine. Since the date of his arrest he is in jail. The petitioner never obtained parole. He has actually undergone imprisonment for more than fourteen years. By communication dated 5th August, 2002, the petitioner was informed that the Government of Maharashtra came to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner falls under Category No.8-A of the guidelines dated 11-5-1992. The Government of Maharashtra remitted that portion of the sentence of imprisonment for life, which is in excess of 30 years of total imprisonment including all remissions. According to the petitioner, the life imprisonment should have been remitted to 24 years including all remissions as per the guidelines dated 16-11-1978. He, therefore, seeks reconsideration of the decision for his premature release from the prison. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have carefully gone through the documents filed by the parties and the concerned provisions. It seems that there were old guidelines for premature release of prisoner serving life imprisonment. They were dated 16th of November, 1978. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have carefully gone through the documents filed by the parties and the concerned provisions. It seems that there were old guidelines for premature release of prisoner serving life imprisonment. They were dated 16th of November, 1978. On 15-5-1992 it was directed that the revised guidelines for premature release under the "14 years rule" of prisoners serving life sentence would be applicable to those convicted after 18th December, 1978. Sub category A of category 8 pertains to the persons guilty of the offences for not involving murder, who are sentenced to life imprisonment for offences like. (a) Offences against the State (Chapter VI of I.P. Code). (b) Abetment of Mutiny (Section 131; 132 of I.P. Code). (c) Offences against public justice (Section 222 and 225 of I.P. Code) (d) Offences in respect of Coinage Stamps (Sections 232, 238, 225 of I.P. Code etc.) And the period of imprisonment to be undergone including remissions is prescribed as 30 years. 5. If the allegations against the petitioner and the offence for which he has been convicted are taken into consideration, it is apparent that his case squarely falls in category 8(A) of the guidelines dated 11-5-1992. On this reasoning only the impugned order dated 5-8-2002 has been passed by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not show us any illegality in the impugned order. It is thus obvious that the case of the petitioner cannot be sent back to the Government for reconsideration and he will have to spend 30 years of total imprisonment including all remissions, as per the order dated 5-8-2002. In the result, we see no merit in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Petition dismissed.