Disposed

M.Lakshmi v. the State Rep. by Its

Madras HC22 Sept 2023WP/27728/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition petition filed by the husband of a convict prisoner seeking permanent transfer from Coimbatore to Salem prison, the High Court of Madras directed the second respondent to consider the representation within four weeks and dispose of it on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the second respondent to consider the representation for transfer of the detenu and pass orders on merits within four weeks.

M.Lakshmi Vs the State Rep. by Its — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.27728 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.09.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

Writ Petition No.27728 of 2023

M.Lakshmi

…. Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The State represented by its Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Department of Home, Fort St.George Chennai 600 009.

¶11

2.The Additional Director General of Prison Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶12

3.The Superintendent

¶13

Central Prison, Coimbatore- 641 018.

¶14

4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Salem.

¶15

…. Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to transfer the detenu Mohan S/o Ramasamy, aged about 54 years from Central Prison, Coimbatore to Central Prison, Salem permanently.

¶17

1 / 4

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.27728 of 2023

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Bakiyaraj For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

¶23

The petitioner's husband Mohan is a convict prisoner with Convict No.24509 lodged at Central Prison, Coimbatore, from where, for reasons adduced in the representation dated 28.08.2023 (wrongly typed as 28.08.2022), the petitioner seeks transfer to Central Prison, Salem.

¶24

Therefore, in order to consider the said representation dated 28.08.2023 and to pass orders on merits, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition. Mr.P.Bakkiyaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court to issue a direction to consider the said representation and to pass orders within a time frame on merits and the petitioner would be satisfied if such indulgence is shown.

¶25

Heard Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who would submit that, if four weeks time is granted, the said representation of the petitioner would be considered and decided on merits.

¶26

2 / 4

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.27728 of 2023

¶29

Considering the said submission made by the learned counsel for both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction.

¶30

That there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.08.2023 and pass orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶32

(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.) 22.09.2023

¶33

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-speaking order KST

¶34

¶35

1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶36

2.The Additional Director General of Prison Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶37

3.The Superintendent Central Prison, Coimbatore- 641 018.

¶38

4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Salem.

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

3 / 4

¶41

W.P.No.27728 of 2023

¶42

R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶43

KST

¶44

W.P.No. 27728 of 2023

¶45

22.09.2023

¶46

4 / 4

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Lakshmi v. the State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Lakshmi v. the State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinnan @ Chinnapi M/a 30 Yrs, Vs the State Rep by Its

Chinnavedi, Aged 38 Years, Vs State by

E. Valavan Vs Tamil Nadu Water Supply and

S.Venkatesan Vs the Tamilnadu State

Rajkumar Vs Inspector of Police

V.Kailasam Vs the Zonal Officer