JUDGMENT Anil R. Dave, J. 1. Leave granted. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, this appeal has been heard today. 2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellants has submitted that the High Court has committed an error by directing that the Respondent should be released in view of G.O. (MS) No. 1155 dated 11.09.2008, though the conditions incorporated in the said G.O. had not been fulfilled by the Respondent/convict. By virtue of the aforestated G.O., certain prisoners undergoing life imprisonment had to be released from jail in view of policy decision taken by the Appellant State on the occasion of birth centenary of Peraringnar Anna. 3. According to the learned senior Counsel, one of the conditions precedent for release of the prisoner was that his behavior in the jail should be satisfactory and without examining, whether behavior of the Respondent was satisfactory, the petition filed by the Respondent praying for his release had been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 5th June, 2014 in H.C.P. (MD) No. 179 of 2014. 4. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants has fairly admitted the fact that a part of Clause (i)(b) of the aforestated Government Order had been held to be bad and had been struck down by this Court in a Judgment delivered in "The State rep. By Secretary to Government and Anr. v. Banumathy" in Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2014 decided on 21.01.2014. In the circumstances, the issue with regard to commission of the offence with some religious prejudice has now become irrelevant. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has submitted that the order passed by the High Court is just and proper and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find substance in the submissions made by the learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants. It is true that the behavior of the Respondent ought to have been "satisfactory" as required under Clause (ii) of the Government Order No. 1155, which reads as under: "That their general behavior in the prison should be satisfactory." 7. It is not in dispute that the High Court did not examine whether the behavior of the Respondent was satisfactory. 8. It is not in dispute that the High Court did not examine whether the behavior of the Respondent was satisfactory. 8. For the purpose of knowing whether behavior of the Respondent was satisfactory, his case ought to have been considered by the Advisory Board, but it is a fact that the Advisory Board had not considered the case of the Respondent and therefore, the direction given by the High Court is not justifiable. The observation made by the High Court with regard to the good behavior of the Respondent is not correct for the reason that the case of the Respondent had not been examined by the Advisory Board. Moreover, upon perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the Appellants in the High Court, it appears that the Respondent was punished for his bad conduct in the jail. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the impugned Judgment dated 05/06/2014 in HCP (MD) No. 179/2014 passed by the High Court of Madras and direct that the case of the Respondent shall be examined by the Advisory Board and if behavior of the Respondent is found to be satisfactory in the jail, appropriate decision with regard to his release may be taken within 12 weeks from today. 10. We also record the fact brought to our notice by the learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants that at one point of time due to a mistake of similarity in name, it was believed that the Respondent was involved in the Coimbatore Bomb Blast, but now it has been clarified that the Respondent was not connected with the Coimbatore Bomb Blast case. With the above observations and directions, the impugned Judgment is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is disposed of as allowed.