ORDER : 1. An affidavit has been filed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Home Department of the Government of UP dated 12 July 2022. The affidavit clarifies that out of a total of 111 convicts covered by the group of six contempt petitions, orders for premature release have already been issued in 98 cases after a decision was taken at the competent level. The status pertaining to 111 cases is compiled in Annexure I to the affidavit. As regards the remaining 13 convicts (111 minus 98), the position has been clarified in the affidavit in the following terms: “4. That regarding 8 Petitioners/Convicts after considering the case by the Government the cases have been referred to the competent level for taking decision on premature release. 5. That in one case the copy of the judgment of the Sessions Court is not received to consider premature release of the convict, hence the proposal has been returned to prison headquarter on which action is pending. 6. That 1 convict/Petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri has been released on surety bond on 16.10.2021, hence the proposal for premature release is not received. 7. That 3 cases relates to the punishment under SC/ST Act, hence for obtaining the opinion of Government of India, the same are pending.” 2. We issue the following directions: (i) The cases of the 8 convicts which have been referred to in paragraph 4 of the above affidavit shall be finalized by the competent authority no later than within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. (ii) As regards the sole case referred to in paragraph 5 of the affidavit extracted above, it has been stated by Ms Garima Prasad, Additional Advocate General that the judgment of the Sessions Court is required to be reconstructed and that the entire process shall be completed within a period of four weeks. Hence, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, final orders in regard to the premature release of the said convict shall be passed by the competent authority. (iii) No further directions are required in regard to the contents of paragraph 6 of the affidavit since the convict has been released on 16 October 2022 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on the execution of a surety bond. (iii) No further directions are required in regard to the contents of paragraph 6 of the affidavit since the convict has been released on 16 October 2022 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on the execution of a surety bond. (iv) In regard to paragraph 7 of the affidavit extracted above, it has been stated by the Additional Advocate General that out of three cases relating to the SC&ST Act, two convicts have already been released on bail. Since the opinion of the Union Government is awaited, this process shall be expedited and orders on the application for premature release shall be passed within a period of four weeks. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Government of UP to the competent authority in the Union Government so as to ensure compliance with the time schedule. 3. Ms Anu Gupta, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has adverted to serial number 58 of Annexure I to the affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary. Serial number 58 refers to a convict by the name of Shiv Kumar, son of Ram Dulare, who is stated to have been released on 6 May 2021. Counsel states that her instructions are that another convict by the same name, who is aged about 70 years, was released, but her instructions are that Shiv Kumar, son of Ram Dulare is yet to be released, contrary to the status report, which indicates that he was released on 6 May 2022. The competent authority shall duly verify the factual position and if no decision has been taken yet on the premature release of Shiv Kumar, son of Ram Dulare (at serial number 58 of the Annexure I), necessary action shall be taken within a period of four weeks by the government. 4. In view of the orders for release which have been passed by the Government of UP and the additional directions which have been issued in the above terms, it is no longer expedient in the interest of justice to keep the contempt petitions alive. Should it become necessary for the counsel for the petitioners to file any individual interlocutory applications for securing the implementation of the above directions, she will be at liberty to do so. 5. The contempt petitions are accordingly disposed of. 6. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.