Allowed

A.Rani v. The Superintendent

Madras HC3 Sept 2014WP/23616/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of leave for a prisoner to attend his son's marriage. It held that a pending appeal by the prisoner in the same case does not bar leave under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1962, and directed the respondent to grant emergency leave.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to grant emergency leave to the petitioner's husband from 04.09.2014 for a period of 10 days to attend the marriage.

A.Rani Vs The Superintendent — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

W.P. No. 23616 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014

¶6

Tmt. A. Rani ..Petitioner

¶7

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem 636 007. ..Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent relating to the order in No. 7279/Tha.Ku.3/2014 dated 26.08.2014, to quash the same and to issue consequential direction to the respondent to grant Emergency Leave for 15 days from 02.09.2014 to the petitioner's husband, Thiru T. Arumugam, lodged in Central Prison, Salem (No. 7279) to attend the marriage and other related functions thereafter of his son, Thiru A. Anand, on 04.09.2014 at Devangar Street Varthagar Mahal Thirumana Mandapam, Dharmapuri Town.

¶9

The petitioner's application for grant of leave for her husband, who is undergoing a sentence in Salem Central Prison is rejected, only on the ground that his appeal against conviction is pending before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

¶10

Heard Mr.M. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶11

The respondent has filed a counter. The only reason stated in the counter is that whenever a case is pending, no leave can be granted in terms of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1962.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

But, the said objection is not correct. What is contemplated by the Rule is that no other case should be pending. An appeal, at the instance of the very same convicted person, in respect of the very same case, for which he is undergoing incarceration, is not what is covered by the Rule.

¶14

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondent to grant emergency leave to the petitioner's husband from 04.09.2014 for a period of 10 days. No costs.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
Dated: 03.09.2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Salem 636 007.
+ 1 cc to Mr.M. Ravi, Advocate Sr.41119
+ 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.41129
W.P. No. 23616 of 2014
SV(CO)
Eu 03.09.14

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Rani v. The Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Rani v. The Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankar Vs Additional Superintendent

Smt.Chandrabai, Vs The Income Tax Officer

R.Sulochana, Vs The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance

M/s. Pothys, Vs The Inspector General of

The Camera Citi, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Madhavi Vs Government of Tamilnadu