1. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court for seeking direction in the name of respondents to consider his case for grant of remission in terms of provisions of MANUAL FOR THE SUPERINTENDENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF JAILS, for short as Manual read with the Prisoners Act, 1977, for short as Act, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Respondents have filed the reply and resisted the same. However, it is averred that whenever Review Board will meet, the case of the petitioner will be placed before it for consideration. 3. Heard counsel for the parties. 4. Considering the case of the prisoner for review is his right, but seeking insistence of granting such review is not his right. My view is fortified by a last division bench judgment of the Madras High Court dated 6th April, 2010 delivered in case Writ Appeal No. 1207 of 2008 titled S. Nalini Srikaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others. It is apt to reproduce relevant part of the judgment herein:- "The appellant, a life convict in a crime that was cunning in conception, meticulous in planning and ruthless in execution in taking away the life of the former Prime Minister of India, cannot seek premature release, as of right, though she got a right to seek for consideration of her plea....." 5. The Apex Court has laid down how and when cases can be considered and what are the factors to be kept in mind in cases titled State of Haryana and others v. Mohinder Singh reported as AIR 2000 SC 890 ; State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh and others reported as AIR 2007 SCW 6988 ; AIR 2008 SCW 5110 titled Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka and Ramraj v. State of Chattisgarh reported as AIR 2010 SC 420 . 6. In the given circumstances, respondents are directed to constitute a Board for reviewing the case of the petitioner for remission of his sentence as per the law applicable. 7. Disposed of.