Dismissed¶33

Periyasamy v. The Director General of Prison

Madras HC24 Mar 2025WP(MD)/3475/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ordinary leave; life convict; three years imprisonment after conviction; Central Prison Madurai; C.P.No. 6109; Deputy Inspector General of Prisons; Director General of Prison; Superintendent of Prison; Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; fresh representation; change of circumstances; Tamil Nadu prison authorities; W.P.(MD) No. 3475 of 2025; decided 24.03.2025; dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation for ordinary leave, to be considered by the respondents in accordance with law in light of the change of circumstances; no costs. ¶33

Periyasamy Vs The Director General of Prison — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.3475 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶8

W.P.(MD)No. 3475 of 2025

Periyasamy

... Petitioner

-Vs-

The Director General of Prison, Directorate of the Central Prison, Tamil Nadu Prison, Veanals Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600008.

¶13

The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus, Madurai City - 625016.

¶14

The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai City - 625016. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus , calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent vide his proceedings in No. 936/Uo.tha.2/2024 dated 16.12.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to grant 30 days ordinary leave to the

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.3475 of 2025

¶19

petitioner's son Arun son of Periyasamy a life convict prisoner in C.P.No. 6109 confined at the Central Prison, Madurai forthwith without escort.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.J. Vijayaraja For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

ORDER

¶22

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶23

AND

¶24

R.POORNIMA , J.

¶25

The application for ordinary leave on behalf of the life convict was dismissed by the authorities on the ground that he had not completed three years of imprisonment, after conviction.

¶26

The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents states that as on date, the life convict has completed three years imprisonment and if file a fresh application the same will be considered in accordance with law.

¶27

Taking note on the date of rejection, the petitioner was not entitled

¶28

for leave since he has not completed three years period of imprisonment after conviction. Therefore, the impugned order holds good. However, the petitioner is

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.3475 of 2025

¶32

given liberty to make a fresh representation for leave and the respondents shall consider the said representation in accordance with law, taking into consideration of the change of circumstances.

¶33