Allowed

Perumal v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Mar 2024WP/3981/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A convict prisoner at Central Prison, Coimbatore sought 40 days' ordinary leave to arrange funds for his son's kidney transplantation. His request had been rejected as he faced an in-house penalty within the preceding year. Relying on the Probation Officer's favourable report and his over-16-year imprisonment, the court granted unescorted leave with conditions.

What did the court decide?

40 days' ordinary leave without escort (11.03.2024 to 20.04.2024) granted; rejection order dated 04.01.2024 quashed; weekly police reporting conditions imposed.

Perumal Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.3981 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶8

W.P.No.3981 of 2024

¶9

Perumal ...Petitioner vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Home (Prison) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Additional Director General of Prisons, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai-600008. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Coimbatore, Coimbatore-641018. ...Respondents _____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶10

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

¶11

W.P.No.3981 of 2024

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent pertaining to the order made in No.8386/Tha.Ku.3/2023, dated 04.01.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant 40 days leave to the petitioner, Perumal, Son of Muthusamy, aged 60 years who is detained at the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Pranklin

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.C.Aravind

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J. )

¶17

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 40 days, without escort, to the petitioner / detenue viz., Perumal, Son of Muthusamy, aged 60 years, who is detained at the Central Prison, Coimbatore, and to quash the proceedings of the third respondent dated 04.01.2024.

¶18

Page 2 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.3981 of 2024

¶21

2.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

¶22

documents.

¶23

3.On the ground that the petitioner has to make financial arrangements for a kidney transplantation for his son, he has sought for grant of ordinary leave. His request was rejected through the impugned order dated 04.01.2024 on the basis that the petitioner was imposed with penalty for committing an offence on 28.02.2023 and since one year has not lapsed after the punishment was imposed, he is ineligible to claim it.

¶24

4.The Probation Officer, in his report dated 28.02.2024 has confirmed

¶25

that the petitioner's son requires a kidney transplantation and has accordingly recommended for grant of leave.

¶26

In view of the favourable recommendation of the Probation Officer,

¶27

we are inclined to invoke our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby granting required leave to the petitioner herein.

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.3981 of 2024

¶31

6.At this juncture, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted

¶32

that the petitioner is otherwise eligible to avail 40 days of ordinary leave since has been been in imprisonment for more than 16 years.

¶33

7.Accordingly, the convict prisoner viz., Perumal, Son of Muthusamy,

¶34

aged 60 years who is detained at the Central Prison, Coimbatore is hereby granted ordinary leave for a period of 40 days, without escort commencing from 11.03.2024 on the following conditions.

¶35

(i) Respondents are directed to release the Convict Prisoner viz., Perumal, Son of Muthusamy, aged 60 years who is detained at the Central Prison, Coimbatore, on Ordinary Leave for a period of 40 days i.e., from 11.03.2024 to 20.04.2024.

¶36

(ii) The Convict Prisoner shall be released on 11.03.2024 at 10.00 am and surrender before the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, on 20.04.2024 at 05.30 p.m.

¶37

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.3981 of 2024

¶40

(iii) The Convict Prisoner is directed to report before the Usilampatti Police Station, Madurai District, once a week i.e., on every Monday at 05.00 pm, during the period of leave.

¶41

(iv) The Convict Prisoner shall utilize the leave only for the ground on which it has been granted and shall not indulge in any other activities.

¶42

With the above directions, the proceedings of the third respondent pertaining to the order made in No.8386/Tha.Ku.3/2023, dated 04.01.2024 is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed.

¶43

(M.S.R.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 06.03.2024

¶44

Note to Registry: 1.Issue order copy by 08.03.2024. 2.Upload the order copy forthwith. Anu

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.3981 of 2024

M.S.RAMESH, J

and SUNDER MOHAN, J

Anu

The Secretary, Home (Prison) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶53

2.The Additional Director General of Prisons, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai-600008.

¶54

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Coimbatore, Coimbatore-641018.

¶55

4.The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Police Station, Madurai District.

¶56

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶57

W.P.No.3981 of 2024

¶58

06.03.2024

¶59

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶60

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

Perumal v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perumal v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

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

Suraj Raj Vs the State Rep. by Its

V.Murali Vs Superintendent of Police

Kamaraj Vs Inspector of Police

S.Abinaya Vs the State Represented by Its

Tada Aslam Vs Inspector of Police

K.P.Mohammed Faisal Vs the State Rep by Its