Honble SHARMA, J.–Grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that although they have served the sentence for more than 14 years, their cases were not placed by the Jail Authorities before the State Advisory Board for shortening of their the State Advisory Board for shortening of their sentences and premature release. In these petitions Constitutional Validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 (for short `2006 Rules) has been challenged. (2). It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the State of Rajasthan in its wisdom exercising the powers conferred by clause (5) and (27) of Section 59 of the Rajasthan Prisons Act, 1894 (for short `the Act) has formulated 2006 Rules. Clause (5) and Clause (27) provide thus:- "(5) for the award of marks and the shortening of sentences." "(27) in regard to the admission, custody, employment, dieting, treatment and release of prisoners" Since the petitioners have not earned four years remission in view of Rule 8(2(i) of 2006 Rules they are not entitled to the relief sought by them. (3). Having analysed the submissions we notice that in Rule 8(2)(i) of 2006 Rules, a condition has been added that the prisoner shall also have to earn a minimum of 4 years of remission in order to be eligible for consideration. Rule 8(2)(i) reads as under:- "(i) a prisoner who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishment provided by law or who has been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under Section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 into one of imprisonment for life, shall be considered only after he has served 14 years of actual imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention spent during enquiry, investigation or trial, on the condition that such a prisoner shall also have to earn a minimum of 4 years of remission in order to be eligible for consideration." (4). The State of Rajasthan although in its wisdom formulated 2006 Rules under Clauses (5) and (27) of Section 59 of the Act, it failed to notice the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 59, which provides thus:- "(2) Every rule made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before the State Legislature." Since 2006 Rules were not laid before the State Legislature, they do not have statutory force. (5). Even otherwise the State Government has no power to rewrite Section 433A of CrPC. Constitutional Bench of Honble Supreme Court in Maru Ram vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107 , had occasion to consider the provisions contained in Section 433A of CrPC and it was indicated thus:- (Para 54) "The major submissions which deserve high consideration may now be taken up. They are three and important in their outcome in the prisoners freedom from behind bars. The first turns on the `prospectivity (loosely so called) or otherwise of Sec. 433A. We have already held that Art. 20(1) is not violated but the present point is whether. On a correct construction, those who have been convicted prior to the coming into force of Sec. 433A are bound by the mandatory limit. If such convicts are out of its coils their cases must be considered under the Remission Schemes and `Short-sentencing laws. The second plea, revolves round `pardonjurisprudence, if we may coarsely call it that way, enshrined impregnably in Arts. 72 and 161 and the effect of Sec. 433A thereon. The power to remit is a constitutional power and any legislation must fail which seeks to curtail its scope and emasculate its mechanics. Thirdly, the exercise of this plenary power cannot be left to the fancy frolic or frown of Government, State or Central, but must embrace reason, relevance and reformation, as all public power in a republic must. On this basis; we will have to scrutinise and screen the survival value of the various Remission Schemes and short-sentencing projects not to test their supremacy over Sec. 433A, but to train the wide and beneficent power to remit life sentences without the hardship of fourteen fettered years." (6). On this basis; we will have to scrutinise and screen the survival value of the various Remission Schemes and short-sentencing projects not to test their supremacy over Sec. 433A, but to train the wide and beneficent power to remit life sentences without the hardship of fourteen fettered years." (6). Since sub-section 2 of Section 59 of Prisons Act, 1894 has been violated by the respondents, we have no option but to strike down the following part of the Rule 8(2)(i):- "On the condition that such a prisoner shall have to earn a minimum of four years remission in order to be eligible for consideration." (7). It will be deemed that this portion had never been added in the said clause. (8). We direct the Jail authorities to forthwith, preferably within thirty days from today, convene the meeting of Advisory Board to consider the cases of the petitioners. (9). The writ petitions stand disposed of as indicated above.