1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.11.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.12464 of 2011 T.Ahamed Batsha @ Neethirajan (Convict Prisoner No.5191) S/o.Thiyagrajan (Presently confined at Central Prison, Madurai) ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Prison)Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort,Chennai. 2.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Madurai. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his proceeding in No. Tha.Ku.2/7287/11 dated 3.10.2011 quash the same and further direct the respondents to grant extension of ordinary leave already granted for 30 days from 18.8.2011 to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jayaramachandran For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition challenging an order rejecting his request for extension of ordinary leave. 2. Heard Mr.A.Jayaramachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC in S.C. No. 18 of 2008 by a judgment dated 14.7.2008 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, by the Sessions Court, (Mahila Court), Cuddalore. 4. The Appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 2009 was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner is now lodged in the Central Prison, Madurai. 5. On medical grounds relating to the health of his wife, the petitioner applied for the grant of ordinary leave for a period of 30 days in terms of Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982. Leave was granted to the petitioner with effect from 18.8.2011. While being on leave, the petitioner sent a representation dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 13.9.2011 seeking extension of the leave for a few more days, on the ground that he had to attend to the treatment of his wife. But the said representation was not considered by the Government. Consequently, the petitioner was again lodged in prison, on 18.9.2011, after the expiry of the period of leave of 30 days. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 3.10.2011, his request for extension of leave was rejected by the second respondent forcing him to come up with the above Writ Petition. 6. The short point that is raised in the Writ Petition is about the power of the Government to grant an extension of the ordinary leave granted under Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules. 7. Under Rule 22(1), a prisoner cannot be granted ordinary leave, unless he has been sentenced by a court in this state to imprisonment for life, in respect of an offence against any law other than a law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union Government extends. One more condition is that such a person should have completed at least three years of incarceration from the date of initial imprisonment, to be entitled to such leave. 8. Sub Rule(2) of Rule 22 prescribes that the period of ordinary leave shall not exceed one month at a time unless it is extended by the Government. Therefore, it is clear that ordinary leave can be granted at a time only for a period of one month. But power is reserved for the Government to extend the leave, as reflected by the later portion of Sub Rule(2). 9. Inasmuch as the petitioner has made a representation on 13.9.2011 to the Government, the Government was obliged to consider, whether it is a fit case, for the extension of leave in terms of the later portion of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 22. Since it has not been considered, I am of the view that the first respondent can be directed to consider the representation. 10. Though the petitioner has now been sent back to prison, on 18.9.2011, the same may not stand in the way of the first respondent Government considering the representation. The application, in other words, cannot be treated as infructuous. The petitioner has stated that due to his inter religious marriage, he is left with no support on either side and that there are children of tender age born out of the marriage. Therefore, the petitioner seeks at least a couple of weeks to make attempts to get his wife treated for her serious illness. 11. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 13.9.2011, without standing on technicalities, but considering the application on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ses Sd/- Assistant Registrar[AS] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HOME (PRISON)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, ST. GEORGE FORT, CHENNAI. 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. +1 CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.NO.38783. W.P.(MD)No.12464 of 2011 DATED:09.11.2011 3P/4C RPB : 14.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/