V.Hari Krishna Reddy,Prakasam Dist v. Govt.Of Ap,Prl.Scy,Home,Hyd,And 2

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE S.V.BHATT WRI T PETI TI ON No.34588 of 2013 ORDER:

No representation for the petitioner.

2.

Heard the Assistant Government Pleader for Home and Mr.Chaitanya for the third respondent.

3.

The petitioner prays for mandamus directing the committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No.220, dated 28.09.2013 to refrain from considering the case of the third respondent for extending special remission benefit. The second respondent filed counter-affidavit dated 31.01.2014. The operative portion of the counter-affidavit reads thus. "It is further submitted that the case of Convict Prisoner No.4026, Allatipalli Siva Sanker Reddy S/o Veera Reddy was not considered for special remission as per the guidelines at para no.5(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.220, Home (Parole) Department, dated 28.09.2013 issued by the 2nd Respondent, according to which "Prisoners who are convicted for life imprisonment in any case with two counts and more shall undergo a minimum actual sentence of 14 years with remand period and total sentence of 20 years with remission".

The Convict Prisoner No.4026, Allatipalli Siva Sanker Reddy S/o Veera Reddy has not completed 14 years of actual sentence with remand period and a total sentence of 20 years with remission. Hence his name was not included in the eligible prisoners list for grant of special remission. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner does not arise as the Committee headed by the Respondent No.2 did not recommend the case of Respondent No.3 for special remission."

4.

From the above it is clear that the case of the third respondent was not considered for granting special remission benefit as apprehended in the writ prayer.

5.

The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.

SVB,J W.P.No.34588 of 2013 05.12.2017 6.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending for consideration stand dismissed as infructuous. _________________ S.V.BHATT, J 05th December, 2017 GHN