Dismissed

Lakshmi v. The Director General of Police and

Madras HC7 Jul 2021WP/13982/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to permanently transfer a convict husband from Coimbatore to Salem prison for visitation convenience. The Court held that prisoner transfer is an administrative act governed by Tamil Nadu Prison Rules and cannot be judicially mandated, issuing only a direction to consider the request. Relief denied.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed with a direction to authorities to consider the petitioner's husband's request in accordance with rules; no positive direction allowed. No costs.

Lakshmi Vs The Director General of Police and — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.07.2021 Coram

¶3

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN

¶4

W.P.No.13982 of 2021

¶5

Lakshmi ..Petitioner Vs.

¶6

1.The Director General of Police & I.G. of Prisons, Prison Head Office, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶7

2.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Salem.

¶8

3.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶9

4.The Inspector of Police, Tholasampatti Police Station, Salem District. ..Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.01.2021 and allow the petitioner's husband to undergo his remaining punishment period in the Central Prison, Salem.

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Nadhiya

¶12

For Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶15

This writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.01.2021 and allow the petitioner's husband to undergo his remaining punishment period of sentence in the Central Prison, Salem.

¶16

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

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that her husband Govindan, son of Perumal, is a Convict Prisoner and he is now undergoing imprisonment in the Central Prison, Salem. Initially, the petitioner's husband was lodged in the Central Prison, Coimbatore and at his request, he was transferred from the Central Prison, Coimbatore to the Central Prison, Salem, temporarily.

¶18

While that being so, the petitioner has given a representation dated 07.01.2021 to the respondents praying that her husband may be permanently kept in the Central Prison, Salem, so that, it will be convenient for his relatives to make prison visits off and on. Since the said representation had not been considered, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the above prayer.

¶19

In our considered opinion, transfer of prisoner from one prison to another prison is an administrative act and this Court cannot interfere into it. Under Rule 568 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, certain grounds have been enumerated for transfer of a prisoner from one prison to another prison.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner may be kept in the Central Prison, Salem, in terms of Rule 568 (iv) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, on humanitarian grounds in the interests of their rehabilitation.

¶21

This is one aspect, which the authorities have to decide and this Court cannot give a positive direction to the authorities to retain the prisoner in the Central Prison, Salem. Sometimes, on account of spread of COVID-19 pandemic, the said prisoner will have to be shifted from the Central Prison, Salem, to any other prison and in that event, the order of this Court should not be an obstacle for the authorities to take appropriate action.

¶22

Therefore, this writ petition is closed with a direction to the authorities to consider the request of the petitioner's husband in accordance with the rules and taking into consideration the others factors as well. No costs.

¶23

Assistant Registrar

¶24

True Copy

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

1.The Director General of Police & I.G. of Prisons,

¶29

Prison Head Office,

¶30

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶31

2.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Salem.

¶32

3.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶33

4.The Inspector of Police, Tholasampatti Police Station, Salem District.

¶34

W.P.No.13982 of 2021

¶35

RP(CO) SP(02/08/2021)

¶36

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

Lakshmi v. The Director General of Police and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi v. The Director General of Police and

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

M.Kannan Vs C.Sundarrajan

Mahalakshmi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.Kabilan Vs the Stateof Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its

Keerthiraj Vs State Rep.by

Ranjith Kumar Vs State Rep.by

Ayyakannu Vs the State Rep.by Its