Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by a convict under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, who was confined at Madurai Central Prison. He sought a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Inspector General of Prison and the Superintendent of Prison to grant him 30 days ordinary leave by considering his representation dated 08.02.2025. During the pendency of the petition, the Deputy Inspector General of Prison considered and rejected the representation on 02.03.2025, citing objections from the victims. At the hearing on 03.03.2025, the Additional Public Prosecutor informed the Court of this development. The Court observed that since the representation had already been decided, nothing survived for adjudication in the writ petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as infructuous. However, the Court expressly authorized the petitioner to challenge the rejection order in a manner known to law, if so advised. The decision did not go into the merits of the leave request but was purely procedural, recognizing that the cause of action for mandamus had become moot. The judgment thus balanced the finality of administrative action with the petitioner’s right to seek judicial review of the adverse order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Infructuous Petition - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner, a convict under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, sought a writ of mandamus directing authorities to grant 30 days ordinary leave by considering his representation dated 08.02.2025. During pendency, the representation was considered and rejected by the first respondent on 02.03.2025, taking into account victim objections. The Court held that since the representation had already been decided, the writ petition became infructuous and was dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the rejection order in accordance with law. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition for mandamus survives after the representation for ordinary leave has been rejected
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous since the representation had already been decided. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the rejection order in accordance with law.
Law Points
- When the representation underlying a mandamus prayer has been decided during pendency
- the writ petition becomes infructuous and is dismissed
- leaving the petitioner liberty to challenge the decision
