JUDGMENT M.T. JOSHI, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides. 2. Categorization of the present petitioner for the purposes of grant of remission from his imprisonment, is challenged by him, in the present Writ Petition. 3. Petitioner Satyadeo was convicted on 27.3.2000 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vardha for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. 4. The Desk Officer of Home Department of the State of Maharashtra i.e. the respondent has passed order on 27.11.2012. He has taken into consideration the guidelines dated 11.5.1992 and 15.3.2010 for the purpose of deciding the issue of grant of remission from the sentence to the petitioner. The Desk Officer perused the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and came to the conclusion that the offence of murder by the present petitioner was committed with premeditation, which comes under category 3(d) of the guidelines dated 11.5.1992 or category no.4(e) of the guidelines dated 15.3.2010. In the circumstances, remission from imprisonment beyond the period of 26 years with necessary deduction was granted. 5. According to the petitioner, in fact, the offence would come under category no. 3(b) of the guidelines dated 11.5.1992 or 4(d) of the guidelines dated 15.3.2010. In the circumstances, remission from imprisonment beyond the period of 24 years ought to have been granted. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Desk Officer did not take into consideration the facts of the case in proper manner and wrong category is applied as regards the present petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. supported the order. 8. The order of the Desk Officer shows the following facts : That the present petitioner-convict was a Police Constable. He had recovered fine of Rs. 25/- from one rickshaw driver-Ganesh Sambhe. He, however, did not pass any receipt. Therefore, deceased Police Inspector Yawale, during roll call, in presence of other Police Constables reprimanded the present petitioner and his colleague. In the circumstances, in the midnight of the same day, the present convict and his colleague went to the quarter of Police Inspector Yawale with knives. They assaulted the Police Inspector Yawale, who has died on the spot itself. 9. In the circumstances, the Desk Officer came to the conclusion that the crime was committed with premeditation. 10. In the circumstances, in the midnight of the same day, the present convict and his colleague went to the quarter of Police Inspector Yawale with knives. They assaulted the Police Inspector Yawale, who has died on the spot itself. 9. In the circumstances, the Desk Officer came to the conclusion that the crime was committed with premeditation. 10. The order would show that the Desk Officer has taken into consideration all the relevant facts. 11. In view of this state of affairs, in the exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of issuing writ, it is not possible to take any other alternate view regarding the facts. 12. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. Rule stands discharged. 13. As Ms. S.L. Awachar, learned counsel was appointed by this Court to defend the petitioner in this petition, we quantify the fees payable to her at Rs. 1500/-. 14. Learned A.P.P. to communicate this order to the petitioner through the Superintendent, Open District Prison, Paithan. Authentic copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned A.P.P., at his request. Petition dismissed.