T. Ramalakshmi v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 24.10.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI T.Ramalakshmi ... Petitioner vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep by The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Madurai Range, 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli district.
4.The Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition Criminal is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or order or any writ to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
order in No.753/udha.2/2025 dated 16.07.2025 passed by the above 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the above respondents 1 to 3 to grant ordinary leave for two weeks to the prisoner, Thirukumaran, S/o. Thangaraja (PID No. 447432) LCT 4988 who is not under incarceration at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.06.2025 For Petitioner : Mr.B.N.Raja Mohamed For Respondents : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN. J.,) The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in No.753/udha.2/2025 dated 16.07.2025 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to grant ordinary leave for two weeks to the prisoner, Thirukumaran, S/o. Thangaraja (PID No. 447432) LCT 4988 who is not under incarceration at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.06.2025
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the prison authorities. Though the convict prisoner has applied for ordinary leave the jail authorities has rejected the application on the ground that he has not completed the required period of conviction for availing the leave.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the convict prisoner is not eligible for ordinary leave since he has not completed the required period of imprisonment after conviction at the time of passing order. Now he has completed the said period of three years of conviction. .
4. In view of the same, this Court does not find any perversity or reason to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent.
5. Hence the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application before the jail authorities if he is eligible for the said leave and if any such application is filed the authorities are directed to consider the same and pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law. No costs. (P.V., J) (L.V.G., J) 24.10.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No aav To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Madurai Range, 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli district.
4.The Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
P.VELMURUGAN, J and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
aav 24.10.2025