1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.02.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P(MD)No.841 of 2011 M.Kishore Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Additional Director General of Prison, Prison Department, Egmore, Chennai. 3.The superintendent of Central Prison, Trichy. 4.The Superintendent of Central Prison Madurai. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to transfer the petitioner's borther M.Kaleeswaran from Central Prison, Trichy to Central Prison Madurai within a time limit. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Addl.Govt.Pleader O R D E R The petitioner seeks a positive direction to the 3rd respondent to transfer his brother M.Kaleeswaran from Central Prison, Trichy to Central Prison, Madurai. 2.The petitioner is the brother of M.Kaleeswaran, now lodged in Central Prison, Trichy. The said M.Kalesswaran was involved in a murder case in S.C.No.73 of 2006. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, as per Judgment dated 23.07.2009. The conviction and the related sentence was confirmed by this Court as per judgment 14.07.2010 in Crl.A.No.290 of 2010. 3.The parents of the convicts died long back and as such the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner and his brother are the only surviving relations to visit the convict. Since the convict is now lodged in Trichy prison, they find difficult to meet him. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation on 03.01.2011 requesting the respondents to transfer his brother to the Central Prison Madurai. The said representation was not considered on the ground that the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment was pending. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the Writ petition. 4.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the order dated 13.12.2010 indicating that the appeal filed by the the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration reported in (1980 (3) SCC 488), Rama Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1997 (2) SCC 642) and Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Others reported in (1981 (1) SCC 608) would submit that the convict should be given a reasonable opportunity to meet his relatives and any restriction placed on such meeting should be treated as unreasonable. According to the learned counsel, the detention in the Central Jail at Trichy would preclude the relatives from meeting the convict as they are stationed at Madurai and therefore, he seeks a direction to the authority to transfer the convict to the central prison at Madurai. 7.The question as to whether the convict has to be transferred to the Central Prison at Madurai is a matter to be considered by the first respondent. The prison rules contains various provisions. It also deal with the measures to be taken for the welfare of prisoners. 8.It is true that the Supreme Court has given series of directions in Sunil Batra's case (cited supra) with regard to the right of the prisoners to meet their relatives. The Supreme Court in Sunil Batra's case indicated that the most important right of the prisoner is integrity of the physical and mental personality. While considering the form of infliction the Supreme Court observed in Para 48, which reads thus; “48. Inflictions may take many protean forms, apart from physical assaults. Pushing the prisoner into a solitary cell, denial of a necessary amenity, and, more dreadful sometimes, transfer to a distant prison where visits or society of friends or relations may be snapped, allotment of degrading labour, assigning him to a desperate or tough gang and the like, may be punitive in effect. Every such affliction or abridgment is infraction of liberty or life in its wider sense and cannot be sustained unless Article 21 is satisfied.....” 9.The convict is now put in Central Prison at Trichy. The petitioner is residing at Tiruppuvanam Pudur in the District of Sivagangai. There is nothing on record to indicate the distance between https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the Central Prison and the place of residence of the petitioner. In any case, the distance appears to be less. Therefore, these are all matters to be considered by the first respondent. 10.Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to make a comprehensive representation before the first respondent and in the event of making any such representation, the said authority is directed to consider and dispose of the representation and pass appropriate orders on merits and as per law, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11.The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Additional Director General of Prison, Prison Department, Egmore, Chennai. 3.The superintendent of Central Prison, Trichy. 4.The Superintendent of Central Prison Madurai. +1 CC TO MR. A. RAHUL, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 9402 W.P(MD)No.841 of 2011 21.02.2011 MPK PAM 02.03.2011/6C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/