Pandeeswari v. The Additional Director General Of Police(Prison)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMKRISHNAN W.P.Crl.(MD).No.3191 of 2026 Pandeeswari .......

Petitioner Vs.

1.The Additional Director General of Police (Prison), Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai.

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai District.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.

...... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned rejection order issued by the second respondent in No. 492/U.Tha.2/2026, dated 12.05.2026 and quash the same and further directing the second respondent to grant emergency leave and release Siva

@ Mittai Siva, s/o. Muniyandi, who is life convict prisoner (PID No. 296915) who is imprisonment in Madurai Central Prison on parole for a period of 45 days by considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.05.2026.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Tajudeen For Respondents : Mr.D.Venkatesh, Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.] This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the second respondent made in No.492/U.Tha.2/2026, dated 12.05.2026 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to grant ordinary leave to the convict for a period of 45 days.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The petitioner's son is undergoing sentence at Central Prison, Madurai. A representation was made by the petitioner on the ground that marriage arrangements must be made to her son and hence, applied for ordinary leave. The representation made by the petitioner came to be

rejected by the second respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 12.05.2026 on the ground that the convict had undergone sentence only for a period of two years and one month and therefore, he is not entitled for ordinary leave, since he did not satisfy the requirement under Rule 22 (1) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

4. In our considered view, the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 12.05.2026 does not suffer from any illegality. There is a specific requirement provided under the Rules to seek for ordinary leave and the convict who does not satisfy the said requirement cannot be granted leave. The ordinary leave cannot be sought for as a matter of right. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the second respondent and accordingly, this writ petition (Criminal) stands dismissed.

[N.A.V., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 17.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No TSG Copy to 1.The Additional Director General of Police (Prison), Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai.

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai District.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.

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

N.ANAND VENKATESH , J.

AND K.K.RAMKRISHNAN, J .

TSG W.P.Crl.(MD).No.3191 of 2026 17.06.2026