Madras High CourtWP(MD)/9507/2022disposed of

Poomayil v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Prisons.

2022-06-07Honourable Mr Justice P. N. Prakash,Honourable Mrs Justice S.Ananthi (Retd.)2 pages

W.P.(MD)No.9507 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.06.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE S.ANANTHI W.P.(MD)No.9507 of 2022 Poomayil : Petitioner Vs.

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Prison Trichy, Trichy District 2.The Superintendent of Prisons District Jail & Borstal School Pudukottai Pudukottai District.

: Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the 2nd respondent's proceedings in No.31.30/Mae/2022 dated 27.04.2022 and quash the same as illegal and directing the respondents to enlarge the petitioner's son named Durai @ Mangalanadhadurai, S/o.Kaleeswaran, life convict (CP No.461) confined at 2nd respondent's prison on parole for the period of 6 days to participate in the ritual doings of petitioner demised husband.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balamuruganantham For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.) The petitioner's son Durai @ Mangalanadha Durai, S/o.Kaleeswaran is a life convict (CP No.461) and is presently lodged in District Jail, Pudukottai. Seeking ordinary leave for six days for her son Mangalanatha Durai, the petitioner gave a representation dated 12.04.2022, which has been rejected by the second respondent vide impugned order dated 27.04.2022, which is under challenge.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P.(MD)No.9507 of 2022

3. A reading of the impugned order dated 27.04.2022 shows that no reason has been disclosed for rejecting the leave application of the petitioner. The impugned order merely states that leave is rejected in terms of Rule 35 of the Prison Manual without anything more. Since the impugned order appears to be a non speaking order and without reasons, the same is set aside and the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in terms of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CRL SIDE) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) RR To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Prison Trichy, Trichy District 2.The Superintendent of Prisons District Jail & Borstal School Pudukottai Pudukottai District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.R.BALAMURUGANATHAM, Advocate ( SR-24718[F] dated 09/06/2022 ) Order made in W.P.(MD)No.9507 of 2022 07.06.2022 SS(17/06/2022) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2