CHANDRIKA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of Government Order, dated 14 -3 -2002. A further prayer has been made that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid Government order.

(2.) THE State Government issued order on 11 -1 -2000 and 25 -1 -2000, by which general directions were issued for premature release of prisoners who had undergone a very small portion of sentences imposed upon them. Though several directions for release were made but the main direction was that all such male prisoners of 60 years or above and all lady prisoners of 50 years or above who had been sentenced to imprisonment for life and had undergone 3 years of sentence without remission by 26 -1 -2000 would be released. These Governments orders were challenged in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition 5039 of 2000 (Mirza Mohammad Husain v. State of U.P. and others). A Division Bench of this Court speaking through one of us (G.P. Mathur, J.) quashed the Government orders dated 11 -1 -2000 and 25 -1 -2000. A further direction was issued to the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. to ensure that all such persons who had been released from Jails on the basis of the aforesaid Government orders shall be taken into custody to undergo the sentence imposed upon them. this direction had to be complied with within 2 months of the receipt of the copy of the judgment. The State Government, thereafter, issued a Government order, dated 14 -3 -2002 to ensure compliance of the directions issued in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5039 of 2000 regarding taking into custody of all such prisoners who had been released from Jails on the basis of the Government orders dated 11 -1 -2000 and 25 -1 -2000.

(3.) SRI Dilip Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before quashing of the Government Orders dated 11 -1 - 2000 and 25 -1 -2000 and, therefore, they should not be taken into custody. In our opinion, the contention raised is wholly misconceived. The Government order dated 11 -1 -2000 and 25 -1 -2000 merely laid down the conditions for release of prisoners of different categories including those who had been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The only condition provided therein was that the male prisoners should be of 60 years or above and the female prisoners should be 50 years or above and should have undergone 3 years of sentence. The individual case of the writ petitioners herein had not been examined by the State Government nor any specific order for their release had been passed. The petitioners were released because the Jail authorities felt satisfied that they came within the purview of the Government orders and satisfied the requirement thereof, namely, that they were more than 60 years of age and had undergone 3 years of sentience. Since no specific order directing their release had been passed, after examining their case on merit, there was no occasion or requirement of issuing any notice to them.