Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Government Order dated 01.02.2019 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by Vishesh Sachiv, Karagar Prashashan Evam Sudhar Anubhag-2, Uttar Pradesh Shashan, Lucknow;
(ii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case;
(iii) award the cost of the petition to the petitioners.

5. The Governor of the State of U.P. has remitted the remaining part of the sentence of Man Singh exercising his power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The Special Secretary, Jail Administration & Reforms has issued impugned order no. 314/22-2-2019-17(150)/2019, Lucknow dated 01.02.2019 granting aforesaid remission to convict respondent no. 5, Man Singh, son of Jardan Singh, lodged in Central Jail, Agra, who was convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment in S.T. No. 41/2007 u/s 148, 307/149, 302/149 I.P.C. and 25 of Arms Act by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi vide order dated 20.08.2009 and whose conviction was upheld by this Court vide judgement and order dated 12.09.2017.

8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been admitted that respondent no. 5, Man Singh has been released vide G.O. No. 314/22-2-2019-17(150)/2019, Lucknow dated 01.02.2019 passed by Special Secretary granting remission to the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the impugned order dated 01.02.2019 has been passed by the Government of U.P. in accordance with the policy dated 01.08.2018. It has also been submitted that the power of remission is vested in the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India for premature release of the convict persons and the impugned order was validly passed under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit, it has been admitted that at the time of release, respondent no. 5, Man Singh was confined in Central Jail, District- Agra. He was forwarded to Central Jail, Agra with two conviction warrant i.e. S.T. No. 41 of 2007 relating to Case Crime No. 1463 of 2006 u/s 148, 307/149, 302/149 I.P.C. and 25 Arms Act, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Jhansi where he was undergoing life imprisonment as awarded to him vide order dated 20.08.2009 and the second conviction warrant was with regard to G.S.T. No. 89 of 2007 in connection with Case Crime No. 1591 of 2006 u/s 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Jhansi wherein vide judgement and order dated 01.09.2017, convict respondent no. 5, Man Singh was awarded 10 years of imprisonment by the trial court. In paragraph no. 10 of the counter affidavit, the criminal history of respondent no. 5, Man Singh as given in the writ petition has been admitted. In paragraph no. 11 of the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that respondent no. 5, Man Singh, has been validly released after grant of remission in compliance of Clause 2-C of policy dated 01.08.2018 as mentioned in G.O. No. 564/2018/1106/22-02-2018-07G/2018 as he had undergone the sentence of 12 years 2 months without remission and 14 years 6 months and 10 days with remission. The Medical Board had given an opinion that the convict is having "congestive heart failure". It has also been submitted that convict Man Singh, was qualified to be released under Clause 2-C of policy dated 01.08.2018 and he was rightly released by the impugned order dated 01.02.2019. In the counter affidavit, Government Order dated 01.08.2018 issued by the Karagar Prashashan Evam Sudhar Anubhag-2, Uttar Pradesh Shashan, Lucknow has been attached as Annexure No. 1. The relevant provisions of Government Order under which convict respondent no. 5, Man Singh, has been released is as follows :

9. In a Division Bench decision of this Court in Satpal Vs. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 170, these very grounds have been restated as: (i) the Governor exercising the power under Article 161 himself without being advised by the Government; or (ii) the Governor transgressing his jurisdiction; or (iii) the Governor passing the order without application of mind; or (iv) the Governor's decision is based on some extraneous consideration; or (v) mala fides. It is on these grounds that the Court may exercise its power of judicial review in relation to an order of the Governor under Article 161, or an order of the President under Article 172 of the Constitution, as the case may be.

14. In Epuru Sudhakar and Another Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others (2006) 8 SCC 161, it was held as under :-

34. The position, therefore, is undeniable that judicial review of the order of the President or the Governor under Article 72 or Article 161, as the case may be, is available and their orders can be impugned on the following grounds:
(a) that the order has been passed without application of mind;
(b) that the order is mala fide;
(c) that the order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations;