Madras High CourtWP(MD)/1667/2022dismissed as infructuous

Karumeniammal.S v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Prison

2022-02-21Honourable Mr Justice R. Subramanian,Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar2 pages

W.P(MD)No.1667 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.P(MD)No.1667 of 2022 S.Karumeniammal : Petitioner .vs.

The State represented by its, 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Madurai Range, Madurai - 625 001.

2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai - 627 007.

: Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant leave for 30 days to the petitioner's son, the detenu, Convict No.4296, Palani S/o.Sankarapandi, aged about 47 years detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

For Petitioner :M/s.Lakshmi for M/s.S.Manoharan For Respondents :Mr.S.Thiruvadikumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

AND N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

The petitioner seeks issuance of a Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant leave for 30 days to her son, viz., Palani, S/o.Sankarapandi, who is undergoing life imprisonment for the offence under Sections 148, 435 r/w 149 and 302 I.P.C.

2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that her representation dated 08.11.2021 to grant ordinary leave to her son, has not been considered by the Authorities.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P(MD)No.1667 of 2022

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the Authorities have considered the representation of the petitioner and have rejected it as early as on 30.11.2021 and sent a report to that effect, to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while denying the statement of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however admit that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on 01.02.2022.

5. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the representation of the petitioner seeking ordinary leave to her son has been rejected. Hence, this writ petition has become infructuous.

6. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed as infructuous reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of rejection.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) pm To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Madurai Range, Madurai - 625 001.

2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai - 627 007.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

W.P(MD)No.1667 of 2022 21.02.2022 MGJ(01.03.2022) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2