IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6685 of 2010 PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI SUCHIT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-JUDGE BHARSARA, P.S. BIHIYA, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT RAJAPUR, P.S. BUDDHA COLONY, TOWN AND DISTRICT-PATNA AND PRACTICING AS AN ADVOCATE IN HON’BLE HIGH COURT AT PATNA. ………………………………………………….....PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH HOME COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE HOME (JAIL) SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE LAW SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (PRISON), DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 5. ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL (PRISON), DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, Advocate. For the State : M/s. A. Amanullah, G.A. No.IV and A. Kumar Prasad, A.C. to G.A. No.IV. ------------ 6. 3.1.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition in public interest. 2 On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the convicts entitled for remission should be allowed remission promptly so that they are not required to move this Court individually. He has further sought a direction from this Court that the authority should implement only those policy decisions or rules relating to remission which are applicable to a particular convict on the date of his conviction by the trial court. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the latter principle shall emerge from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Jagdish (AIR 2010 SCW 2178). Learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Jagdish (Supra) was rendered in the facts and situation prevailing in the State of Haryana whereas in the State of Bihar, there is a policy decision contained in Annexure-‘3’ dated 21st January, 1984 relating to grant of remission and that has been duly amended by Annexure-‘D’ dated 29th June, 2007 and there is no difficulty in the State of Bihar in following the amended policy relating to remission. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that on 26th of March, 2010, another Public Interest Litigation bearing 3 C.W.J.C. No.5177 of 2010 (Om Prakash Poddar Vs. The State of Bihar and others) has been disposed of fixing time limit of three months for sending cases of remission from the concerned jails to the Board which is required to meet and take decision as per law promptly. So far as the first prayer of the petitioner is concerned, that has been taken care of by the earlier order of this Court dated 26th of March, 2010 noticed above. So far as the second prayer of the petitioner is concerned, it would not be proper to consider the validity or effect of Annexure-‘D’ on the rights of the convicts in a Public Interest Litigation. Till that matter is raised at the instance of a convicted person and decided, we can only reiterate that the concerned authorities should act promptly and decide the cases of remission in accordance with law. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.S. ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)