Dismissed¶42

Palaniammal v. The Additional Director General Of Police (Prison)

Madras HC17 Jun 2026WP Crl.(MD)/3189/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ordinary leave / parole refusal for NDPS Act commercial-quantity convict; Rule 21 and Rule 21(h)(3) bar under Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982; Madurai Central Prison prisoner PD37666; writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226; rejection order No. 579/U.the 2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 by DIG of Police, Madurai Range; reliance on Rajammal v. DIG of Prisons, (2026) 2 MLJ (Crl) 476; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is a bar under Rule 21(h)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 against granting ordinary leave to a convict sentenced for possessing commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, and this Court cannot disregard the bar imposed by the Rules so as to grant ordinary leave. ¶39

Palaniammal Vs The Additional Director General Of Police… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.CRl..(MD).No.3189 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMKRISHNAN

¶6

W.P.Crl.(MD).No.3189 of 2026

Palaniammal

....... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Additional Director General of Police (Prison), Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai District.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.

¶13

4.The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Madurai Sub- Zone, Madurai.

¶14

...... Respondents

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.CRl..(MD).No.3189 of 2026

¶18

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned rejection order issued by the second respondent in No. 579/U.the 2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 and quash the same and further directing the second respondent to grant ordinary leave and release the petitioner's son, namely, M.Pandian, s/o. Madasamy, who is 10 years convicted prisoner (No.PD37666) who is imprisonment in Madurai Central Prison on parole for 15 days by considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.05.2026.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Tajudeen

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.D.Venkatesh,

¶21

Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.]

¶24

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the second respondent made in No.579/U.the 2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to

¶25

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.CRl..(MD).No.3189 of 2026

¶28

grant ordinary leave to the petitioner's son, who is presently serving sentence at Central Prison, Madurai.

¶29

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶30

3. The petitioner's son was convicted for offence under NDPS Act

¶31

for possessing commercial quantity of narcotic drug and he was sentenced to undergo 10 years imprisonment by the trial Court and the same was confirmed by this Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the convict in

¶32

Crl.A.(MD).No.12 of 2021 by judgment dated 15.05.2025.

¶33

4. The petitioner submitted a representation on the ground that her son has undergone sentence for more than nine years and that his help is required for arranging funds for the victim's daughter, who wants to join a Polytechnic College. The second respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 01.06.2026 rejected the representation made by the petitioner on the ground that there is a bar under Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, in granting ordinary leave, since the convict was convicted and sentenced for having possessed commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

¶34

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.CRl..(MD).No.3189 of 2026

¶37

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

¶38

the impugned order passed by the second respondent suffers from illegality and that considering the fact that the convict has undergone major part of the sentence and the reason assigned seeking for leave, the same should have been considered by the second respondent.

¶39

6. In our considered view, there is a bar under Rule 21(h)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, in granting ordinary leave. This Court cannot disregard the said bar imposed by the Rules and grant granting ordinary leave. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajammal and Others vs. Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services Department,

¶40

Madurai and Others reported in (2026) 2 MLJ (Crl) 476.

¶41

7. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the order

¶42

passed by the second respondent and accordingly, this writ petition (criminal) stands dismissed.

¶43

[N.A.V., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 17.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No TSG

¶44

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶45

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