ORDER : B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. The present writ petition is came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s husband Sri Dubbinaboina Vara Prasad @ M.L.A. Prasad (C.T.No.1434), Central Prison, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District for special remission granted to the life convict prisoners in view of G.O.Ms.No.121 Home (Paroles & HRC Department) dated 14.08.2022 is illegal and arbitrary and pass necessary orders in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner’s husband was convicted for the offence U/s.302 of Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’) vide judgment dated 22.10.2010 in S.C.No.237/2007 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, for the offence U/s.302 I.P.C. on the file of III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. He preferred Criminal Appeal No.1642/2010 on the file of this Court and it was dismissed, confirming the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Since then, he is undergoing sentence. 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued certain guidelines vide G.O.Ms.No.91 (Paroles & HRC Department) dated 16.08.2021 for grant of special remission to the life convict persons on the occasion of Independence Day. The Government appointed a committee headed by the 1 st respondent to review the list and recommend the names for consideration of special remission. The committee issued a letter to the 2 nd respondent to prepare list of eligible convict prisoners as per G.O.Ms.No.91. The 2 nd respondent prepared a list accordingly. The 1 st respondent basing on the said list recommended 175 life convict prisoners for grant of special remission of sentence with certain conditions. 4. The petitioner’s husband name was not considered on the ground that at the time of preparing list, he was on parole at the time of Covid- 19 and 30 days i.e., from 24.07.2021 to 22.08.2021 vide G.O.Rt.No.627 dated 13.07.2021. The petitioner’s husband came to know about the special remission. Immediately he surrendered in the jail on 17.08.2021. The 3 rd respondent issued a conduct certificate stating that the petitioner’s husband conduct is satisfactory. 5. The petitioner made a representation to the 2 nd respondent requesting to consider her husband’s name for special remission as per G.O.Ms.No.91. But, so far no action was taken. Immediately he surrendered in the jail on 17.08.2021. The 3 rd respondent issued a conduct certificate stating that the petitioner’s husband conduct is satisfactory. 5. The petitioner made a representation to the 2 nd respondent requesting to consider her husband’s name for special remission as per G.O.Ms.No.91. But, so far no action was taken. The petitioner’s husband is entitled for special remission as stated above. Hence, the Writ Petition. 6. The 3 rd respondent filed counter affidavit inter alia, contending that the petitioner’s husband is a life convict vide judgment dated 22.10.2010 in S.C.No.273/2007 on the file of III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. He was admitted in Central Prison on 22.10.2010. He filed Crl.A.No.1642/2010 on the file of this Court and it was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.01.2014. 7. The petitioner’s husband granted 30 days parole vide G.O.Rt.No.627 dated 13.07.2021. He was released on 23.07.2021. He surrendered to the prison on 17.08.2021. He was not granted parole on Covid grounds. He was granted parole to resolve financial matters of the family. 8. The committee under the Chairmanship of the Inspector General of Prisons, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, considered and found eligible life convict prisoners for application of G.O.Ms.No.91. The petitioner’s husband was found in-eligible by the committee as he was on parole on falls short of criteria under sub-section (XVII) in category-II of para 8 as per guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.91. 9. The representation of the petitioner was submitted to the Director General of Prisons and Corectional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada dated 09.09.2021. However, the petitioner never submitted any representation to consider his case for premature release as per G.O.Ms.No.121 and G.O.Ms.No.91 stated above. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 10. Heard Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for writ petitioner and Smt.A.Jayanthi, Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 11. The learned counsel for petitioner while arguing on the facts of the case and law, would submit that this Court in similar circumstances vide order dated 26.06.2023 in W.P.No.7925 of 2023, directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioners therein as per G.O.Ms.No.121. 12. In the light of rival contentions as stated above from the pleadings, the factual matrix is not in dispute. 12. In the light of rival contentions as stated above from the pleadings, the factual matrix is not in dispute. The petitioner’s husband was convicted for the offence U/s.302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 22.10.2010 passed in S.C.No.237/2007 on the file of III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. He preferred Crl.Appeal No.1642 of 2010 before this Court and it was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.01.2014. 13. The petitioner’s husband applied for grant of parole of 30 days and accordingly, he was granted parole vide G.O.Ms.No.627 dated 13.07.2021 and released on 23.07.2021. He surrendered to the prison on 17.08.2021. 14. At the time of submission of eligible prisoners pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.121 and G.O.Ms.No.91, the petitioner was on parole. 15. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation to the 3 rd respondent is not considered for release of her husband pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.121 dated 14.08.2022. 16. As per the contention of the respondent, since the petitioner’s husband was not in prison by the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.121 dated 14.08.2022, he is not entitled to the benefit of said G.O. Further, the petitioner’s husband did not present any representation to consider his case for special remission pursuant to said G.O. 17. In view the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the husband of the petitioner to present a representation to the 2 nd respondent. On such representation, if the 2 nd respondent is of the opinion that the case of petitioner is falls within G.O.Ms.No.121, he is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in this regard, forthwith. 18. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlacutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.