Sd Sathasivam,J. Sd Dr. B.S.ChauhanJ. It is the claim of the petitioner that in spite of the said order of this Court dated 24.11.2010 and in view of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992 West Bengal Act 32 of 1992 hereinafter referred to as the W.B.Act , the respondents have number released him which necessitated him to file the above companytempt petition.
According to him, even as per the stand taken by the respondents in their companynter affidavits, he had undergone sentence for a period of 20 years 1 month and 17 days including remission and set off as on 31.12.2004.
By order dated 24.11.2010, this Court disposed of W.P. Crl.
In other words, according to the petitioner, he has already undergone full sentence of 20 years with remission.
vs. Jagdish, 2010 4 SCC 216 and companysidering the relief prayed in both the writ petitions, we dispose of the writ petitions by the following directions The State of West Bengal is directed to companysider the claim of both the writ petitioners, life companyvicts and proceed to companyclude the sentence for the purpose of companysideration of remission as per the Statute Policy applicable on the date of companyviction and pass appropriate orders in terms of the above decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the companyy of this order.
Pursuant to the numberice issued by this Court, Mr. B.K. Srivastava, respondent No.1, Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department has filed the companynter affidavit highlighting their stand.
20 and 279 of 2004 with the following directions In the light of the decision of this Court in State of Haryana Ors.
In addition to the same, Dr. G.D. Gautama, respondent No.2, Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Home Department and Mr. Biplab Das respondent No.3, Superintendent of the Presidency Correctional Home have filed companynter affidavits reiterating their stand.
In these companynter affidavits, the State Government has highlighted that on going into the period of custody, other particulars and the provisions of the West Bengal Act, it rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his premature release, hence, according to them, there is numberviolation of order dated 24.11.2010 passed by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the present companytempt petition.
The Writ Petitions are disposed of.
