Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by a convict under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), seeking ordinary leave for a period of 30 days based on his representation dated February 8, 2025. The petitioner was confined at Madurai Central Prison. At the hearing, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the representation had already been considered by the first respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Madurai Range, and was rejected by order dated March 2, 2025, after taking into account the objections raised by the victims. In view of this development, the court found that the primary grievance of the petitioner stood resolved by the rejection order, rendering the writ petition infructuous. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition without examining the merits of the leave request. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the rejection order, if so advised, in the manner known to law. No costs were imposed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Maintainability - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner, a convict under POCSO Act, sought ordinary leave vide representation dated 8.2.2025. The court found that the representation had already been rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Prison on 02.03.2025, considering victims' objections. Since the order on representation had been passed, nothing survived for adjudication. Held that the writ petition is dismissed, granting liberty to challenge the rejection order in accordance with law. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition for ordinary leave filed by a convict under POCSO Act survives when the representation was already rejected before the hearing.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed as nothing survived for adjudication; liberty to challenge the rejection order in accordance with law.
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 230
Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran, Justice R. Poornima
Mr. R. Vignesh for petitioner; Mr. A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Madurai Range, Madurai; 2. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Jail, Madurai; 3. The Superintendent of Police, Viruthunagar District
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking ordinary leave for a convict
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought ordinary leave for 30 days based on representation dated 8.2.2025
Filing Reason
Petitioner filed writ petition because his representation for ordinary leave had not been acted upon; but during hearing it was revealed that it had already been rejected on 02.03.2025
Previous Decisions
Representation was rejected by first respondent on 02.03.2025 after considering victims' objections
Issues
Whether the writ petition for ordinary leave is maintainable when the representation has already been decided and rejected by the authorities.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel: Not mentioned (heard)
Respondents' counsel: Submitted that the representation was already considered and rejected by the first respondent on 02.03.2025.
Ratio Decidendi
When the relief sought in a writ petition has already been decided by the competent authority before the hearing, the petition becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner, a convict under POCSO Act, has sought for ordinary leave vide his representation, dated 8.2.2025.
the request of the Petitioner for ordinary leave was considered by the Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Madurai, the first respondent herein and the same was rejected vide order dated 02.03.2025, considering the objections from the victims.
nothing survives for further adjudication in this Writ Petition and hence, the same stands dismissed.
It is open to the Petitioner to challenge the rejection order of the first respondent, if so advised, in the manner known to law.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for ordinary leave; During pendency, the representation was rejected on 02.03.2025; At hearing, the court was informed of rejection and dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
