P.Pauline v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.12.2023 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL P.Pauline .. Petitioner vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Home (Prison - IV) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Additional Director General of Police (Prisons)/ Inspector General of Prisons, CMDA Tower-II, No.1 Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
1/11
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus, Madurai-625 016.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
.. Respondents Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to grant ordinary leave of 30 days without police escort to the petitioner's son Arogya Prabhu, S/o.Pannerselvam who is confined at Central Prison, Madurai for diagnosis of his ailment and for taking treatment at better health care facility by considering her representation dated 21.11.2023.
For Petitioner :
Mr.P.Karthick For Respondents :
Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor 2/11
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] When the matter was taken up, it came to light that leave application ie., application for 30 days ordinary leave without police escort for 'writ petitioner's son Mr.Arogya Prabhu, S/o.Pannerselvam now confined in Central Prison, Madurai' [hereinafter referred to as 'prison inmate' for the sake of convenience] has since been rejected vide order dated 30.11.2023 bearing reference No.2325/cj.2/2023. A scanned reproduction of this 30.11.2023 order together with a communication dated 24.11.2023 from fourth respondent to petitioner and his higher authorities are as follows:
3/11
4/11
5/11
6/11
7/11
2.Faced with the above situation, learned counsel sought leave of this Court to withdraw captioned 'Writ Petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] but made a plea to preserve all the rights and contentions to the petitioner and/or anyone concerned for the prison inmate to challenge the aforementioned order dated 30.11.2023 rejecting leave application. Learned counsel has made an endorsement in the case file and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
3.In the light of narrative thus far, captioned WP is disposed of as closed/withdrawn albeit preserving all the rights and contentions of writ petitioner and/or anyone concerned for prison inmate to assail the aforementioned order in a manner known to law. If the aforementioned order is assailed, the Court concerned shall consider the 8/11
same on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by closure/withdrawal of captioned WP, as captioned WP has been filed with a Mandamus prayer and rejection order has since been passed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[M.S.,J.[ [R.S.V.,J.] 01.12.2023 Index : Yes/No ps 9/11
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Prison - IV) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Additional Director General of Police (Prisons)/ Inspector General of Prisons, CMDA Tower-II, No.1 Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus, Madurai-625 016.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
5.The Inspector of Police, Periyakulam Police Station, Theni District.
10/11
M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., ps 01.12.2023 11/11