Partly allowed

Arputha Jothi v. the State Rep. by Its

Madras HC22 Feb 2024WP/4525/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by a wife for 28 days leave for her husband held in prison, citing her medical condition. The Court expressed lack of conviction regarding the medical ground, rejected the writ prayer but directed the authorities to decide the representation on merits within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stood rejected; direction to third respondent to consider the representation dated 19.02.2024 on merits and pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

Arputha Jothi Vs the State Rep. by Its — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.4525 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.02.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

W.P.No.4525 of 2024

Mrs.Arputha Jothi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State rep. by its, The Home Secretary to Government, Prison Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.The Director General of Prisons, No.02, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶14

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison at Puzhal, Thiruvallur District – 600 066. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3 rd respondent grant 28 days leave from 24.02.2024 to the petitioner's husband namely Mr.M.Karmegam, S/o.Muthu Subramanian (CT No2434).

¶16

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

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

W.P.No.4525 of 2024

¶19

F or Petitioner : Mr.K.Sakthivel For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind

¶20

ORDER

¶21

M.S.RAMESH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶22

Through an order dated 17.02.2024, the petitioner's husband was

¶23

granted 6 days ordinary leave, commencing from 17.02.2024 to 24.02.2024. In the present Writ Petition, extension of leave for a further period of 28 days is sought for by the petitioner for her husband.

¶24

2. The reason assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ

¶25

Petition, for seeking leave is that the petitioner is suffering from dysfunctional uterine bleeding and hence, her husband's presence is required.

¶26

3. We are not convinced with the reason on which the petitioner

¶27

has sought for extension of leave for her husband. When such a view was expressed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶28

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

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

W.P.No.4525 of 2024

¶31

petitioner has also given a representation dated 19.02.2024 to the respondents, seeking for further leave and that her husband is eligible to avail such leave. In view of the same, the Jail Authority may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation, within a stipulated time and thereafter, the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed.

¶32

4. Accordingly, the prayer sought for in the present Writ Petition stands rejected. However, there shall be a direction to the third respondent herein, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶33

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]

¶34

22.02.2024

¶35

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

¶36

Sni

¶37

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

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39

W.P.No.4525 of 2024

¶40

M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶41

Sni

¶42

¶43

The Home Secretary to Government, Prison Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶44

2.The Director General of Prisons, No.02, Whannels Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶45

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison at Puzhal, Thiruvallur District – 600 066.

¶46

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶47

W.P.No.4525 of 2024

¶48

22.02.2024

¶49

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

¶50

Page 4 of 4

Arputha Jothi v. the State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arputha Jothi 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

Thameem Ansari Vs the Union Rep. by Its

Palani Vs the State Rep by Its

P.Muthukumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Kumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

Shree Selvi Chambers Vs Union of India

Shree Selvi Chambers, Vs Union of India