Dismissed

T. Ramalakshmi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC24 Oct 2025WP Crl.(MD)/1106/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of ordinary leave for a convict prisoner at Central Prison, Palayamkottai on the ground of incomplete conviction period. By then the prisoner had completed three years; the court found no perversity in the rejection and dismissed the petition with liberty to apply afresh.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty to file fresh ordinary leave application, to be considered on merits.

T. Ramalakshmi Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP.Crl.(MD)No.1106 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 24.10.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

WP.Crl.(MD)No.1106 of 2025

T.Ramalakshmi

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu

¶11

Rep by The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Madurai Range, Madurai.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli district.

¶14

4.The Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition Criminal is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or order or any writ to call for the records pertaining to the impugned

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

WP.Crl.(MD)No.1106 of 2025

¶20

order in No.753/udha.2/2025 dated 16.07.2025 passed by the above 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the above respondents 1 to 3 to grant ordinary leave for two weeks to the prisoner, Thirukumaran, S/o. Thangaraja (PID No. 447432) LCT 4988 who is not under incarceration at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.06.2025

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.B.N.Raja Mohamed For Respondents : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN. J .,)

¶24

The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the impugned order

¶25

passed by the second respondent in No.753/udha.2/2025 dated 16.07.2025 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to grant ordinary leave for two weeks to the prisoner, Thirukumaran, S/o. Thangaraja (PID No. 447432) LCT 4988 who is not under incarceration at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.06.2025

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

WP.Crl.(MD)No.1106 of 2025

¶29

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the prison authorities. Though the convict prisoner has applied for ordinary leave the jail authorities has rejected the application on the ground that he has not completed the required period of conviction for availing the leave.

¶30

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that

¶31

the convict prisoner is not eligible for ordinary leave since he has not completed the required period of imprisonment after conviction at the time of passing order. Now he has completed the said period of three years of conviction. .

¶32

In view of the same, this Court does not find any perversity or

¶33

reason to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent.

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

WP.Crl.(MD)No.1106 of 2025

¶37

Hence the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However the

¶38

petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application before the jail authorities if he is eligible for the said leave and if any such application is filed the authorities are directed to consider the same and pass orders

¶39

on its own merits and in accordance with law. No costs.

¶40

(P.V., J) (L.V.G., J ) 24.10.2025

¶41

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No aav

¶42

¶43

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶44

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Madurai Range, Madurai.

¶45

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli district.

¶46

¶47

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

¶48

WP.Crl.(MD)No.1106 of 2025

¶49

4.The Inspector of Police, Kadayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶50

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

WP.Crl.(MD)No.1106 of 2025

¶54

P.VELMURUGAN, J and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶55

aav

¶56

WP.Crl.(MD)No.1106 of 2025

¶57

24.10.2025

¶58

¶59

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

T. Ramalakshmi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Ramalakshmi v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

The Manager Vs Prabhakaran

Iffco Tokio General General Insurance Company Limited, Vs M.B.Kavya

The Project Director, Vs R. Vijay Sankar

The Divisional Manager Vs K.Venkateswari

Arjunan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, The Inspector of Police

The Divisional Manager Vs Minor.Ishanvi