Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vijayalakshmi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents — the Deputy Inspector General of Prison, the Superintendent of Prison, and the Superintendent of Police — to grant ordinary leave for 21 days to her brother, Kannan (C.P.No.6099), a convict. The prayer was based on a representation dated 4.2.2025. During the pendency of the petition, the respondents considered the representation and, by proceedings dated 20.3.2025, granted ordinary leave for 21 days but with escort. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted this fact to the court. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the convict’s house was small, making it difficult to accommodate the escort, and therefore requested leave without escort. The court, however, found it not appropriate to dispense with the escort. In view of the fact that the representation had been disposed of and leave already granted (though with escort), the court held that nothing survived for further adjudication. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The bench, comprising Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice R. Poornima, thus declined to grant the relief of leave without escort, affirming the necessity of escort during ordinary leave for a convict.
Headnote
A) Prison Law - Ordinary Leave - Escort Necessity - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioner sought ordinary leave for her convict brother; representation was considered and leave granted with escort; Petitioner’s counsel requested leave without escort due to small house; Court found it not appropriate to dispense with escort; Held that in view of disposal of representation, nothing survived for adjudication, writ petition dismissed (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the convict should be granted ordinary leave without escort despite the representation being considered and leave granted with escort
Final Decision
The representation was already considered and ordinary leave was granted with escort. The court found no merit in dispensing with the escort. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed as nothing survived for further adjudication.
Law Points
- Writ of mandamus
- ordinary leave for convict
- escort necessity
- representation disposal
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 238
Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran, Justice R. Poornima
Dr. Lakshmi Prasanna, Mr. A. Thiruvdi Kumar
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Prison and Correctional Services, Madurai Range, Madurai Central Prison Campus, New Jail Road, Madurai; 2.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Jail, Madurai; 3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the prison authorities to grant ordinary leave to a convict.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to consider her representation and grant 21 days ordinary leave to her convict brother without escort.
Filing Reason
Representation dated 4.2.2025 seeking ordinary leave was pending consideration.
Issues
Whether the convict should be granted ordinary leave without escort despite the representation being considered and leave granted with escort.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that the convict's house is small, making it difficult to accommodate the escort, and therefore requested leave without escort.
Respondents' counsel submitted that the representation was positively considered and ordinary leave for 21 days with escort was granted.
Ratio Decidendi
When a representation for ordinary leave has been considered and granted with escort, and the court finds no valid reason to dispense with the escort, the writ petition seeking leave without escort becomes infructuous and liable to be dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
the representation of the Petitioner was positively considered and vide proceedings, dated 20.3.2025 and ordinary leave for 21 days with escort has been granted.
This Court finds that it is not appropriate to dispense with the escort.
In view of the disposal of the representation, nothing survives for further adjudication in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to consider her representation for ordinary leave. During pendency, the representation was considered and leave granted with escort. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
