ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The Writ Petition is filed to issue Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the action of the respondents in not giving the benefit of remission to V. Mallikarjuna S/o Gangulappa (accused in Sessions Case No.478 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District who is presently lodged in the Central Prison, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.6, Home (Paroles) Department dated 09.01.2019, on par with similarly placed prisoners, who were already released in pursuance of the said G.O. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the above mentioned accused is the son-in-law of the petitioner. He was an accused in Sessions Case No.478 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District. He was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. He was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life vide Judgment Dated 17.02.2014. He preferred Criminal Appeal No.1315 of 2009 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 17.02.2014. 4. The above accused has been undergoing sentence from 03.03.2009 at the Central Prison, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. While so, the respondent No.1/State issued G.O.Ms.No.6, Home (Paroles) Department dated 09.01.2019, extending special remission to life convicts, on the occasion of Republic Day by issuing guidelines, one time exemption to consider special remission, as per the guidelines has been extended in the said G.O. The son- in-law of the petitioner is entitled to the same benefit provided under the above G.O., but the respondent authorities refused to extend the said benefit to the son-in-law of the petitioner. The said refusal of the respondent authorities is not in accordance with the law. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed, seeking release of the son-in-law of the petitioner, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.6. 5. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondent/State contending that the son-in-law of the petitioner is not entitled to avail the benefit of the G.O.Ms.No.6, the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide Circular Memo No.Jud-2/07/2015 dated 24.02.2015 issued orders for punishing the son-in-law of the petitioner, as per the Rule 310 of the Andhra Pradesh Prison Rules, 1979. He was also punished for possession contraband articles. Therefore, the son-in-law of the petitioner has not been included in the list of the prisoners, to be released, as per the G.O.Ms.No.6, referred above. He is not entitled to the benefit of the said G.O., as life convicts who are punished for any prison offence, during the last three (03) preceding years and those who are punished for any serious prison offence like revolt/organizing revolt against the prison administration, at any time, during their entire period of stay in the prison. Hence, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. 6. In the light of the above rival contentions, the only point for consideration is “whether the act of respondent authorities in refusing the release of the son-in-law of the petitioner on the ground that he is not entitled to benefit of G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 09.01.2019, is in accordance with law?” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the respondent authorities misinterpreted the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 09.01.2019 and did not extend the benefit of the G.O, to the son-in-law of the petitioner, on the ground that the life convicts who are punished for any prison offence during the last three (03) preceding years and those who are punished for any serious prison offence like revolt/organizing revolt against the prison administration, at any time during their entire period of stay in the prison are not entitled to the benefit of the G.O. He would submit that admittedly, the son-in-law of the petitioner who is a life convict was not punished for any prison offence during the last three (03) preceding years of the above G.O. Therefore, the first limb of the above guidelines referred by the respondent authorities has not been fulfilled. Hence, son-in-law of the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the G.O. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an Order of Division Bench of this Court in the Writ Petition No.10962 of 2019, dated 23.09.2019. 8. He would submit that in the Order of the Hon’ble Division Bench in similar circumstances relating to the case of similar accused like the son-in- law of the petitioner, the above G.O. was applied. It was held that the Clause in the GO relied on by the Respondent Authorities contain two (02) parts. 8. He would submit that in the Order of the Hon’ble Division Bench in similar circumstances relating to the case of similar accused like the son-in- law of the petitioner, the above G.O. was applied. It was held that the Clause in the GO relied on by the Respondent Authorities contain two (02) parts. First part is regarding life convicts, who are punished for any prison offences, during the last three (03) preceding years. The second part relates to convicts who are punished for any serious in offence, at any time during the period of stay in the prison. Therefore, the word used therein is “ and ” not “ or ”. The extension of remission can be denied only when the convict is involved in both the categories mentioned in the Clause. In the case on hand, the son-in-law of the petitioner did not commit any offence, during the last preceding three (03) years. Hence, he is also entitled to the benefit of the said GO. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances, in the light of above interpretation directed the respondent authorities to forthwith release the prisoner by extending remission granted under G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 09.01.2019, if he is not required in any other case. 10. Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that as per the written instructions received from Superintendent of Central Prison, Nellore, the prisoner in the case on hand was not punished during the period from 09.01.2016 to 09.01.2019 i.e. proceeding three (03) years of the G.O. 11. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench which relates to co-accused of the prisoner in the case, and as he was not punished for any prison offence during the last preceding three (03) years of the GO, is entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.6, Home (Paroles) Department dated 09.01.2019. He could have released earlier along with co-accused but the respondent authorities wrongly interpreted the GO and refused to release him. 12. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent authorities are directed to release the prisoner/convict namely Vadde Jaripati Mallikarjuna S/o V. Ranganna, forthwith, by extending the remission, as per G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 09.01.2019, if he is not required any other case. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent authorities are directed to release the prisoner/convict namely Vadde Jaripati Mallikarjuna S/o V. Ranganna, forthwith, by extending the remission, as per G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 09.01.2019, if he is not required any other case. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.