Madras High Court
Syed Ali Fathima vs The Home Secretary on 11 December, 2015
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.12.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P(MD)No.20717 of 2015
Syed Ali Fathima
W/o.Sheik Sindhamadar
No.33/19 Neelakanda Street
Lebbai Colony
Pathamadai
Tirunelveli : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Home Secretary,
Home Prison Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Additional Director General of Prison
O/o. The Additional Director General of Prison,
No.1 Gandhi Erwin Road
Egmore, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai
Tirunelveli : Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a writ of mandamus praying to direct the respondents to grant
parole for a period of one month to the petitioner's husband namely sheik
Sindhamadhar, confined at Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah
For Respondent : Mr.D.Muruganandham
Addl.Government Pleader
:ORDER
The petitioner has come up with this petition praying to direct the respondents to grant parole for a period of one month to the petitioner's husband namely sheik Sindhamadhar, confined at Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli.
2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband is a life convict and he is in prison for the past 16 years and that he has already been granted parole twice and at present, he sought 30 days leave, as his mother is unwell. It is further submitted that along with her representation, documents have also been enclosed about the illness of the mother, but, however, the Superintendent of Prison has rejected the said request on 28.10.2015. It is the further contention that the writ petition has been filed on 20.11.2015 and only after filing of the writ petition in November 2015, the order dated 28.10.2015 has been served on him.
4. The petitioner would further contend that they have wrongly invoked Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 and that there are instances, where leave has to be granted for a month and that the respondent ought to have forwarded the application, when the petitioner's husband is imprisoned for more than 16 years.
5. Even though the respondent has not filed any counter, the contention of the petitioner has been strongly refuted on the ground that the request of the petitioner has not been rejected, but documents have been called for from the petitioner to enable them to forward the application to the Government. The Additional Government Pleader fairly submitted that it is for the Government to pass appropriate orders and the Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) has got powers to pass appropriate orders. In the present case, the application has been given to the Superintendent of Prisons. He would further contend that in terms of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, the petitioner is not entitled for 30 days leave and that leave would be granted, in case, medical records are produced and the authorities shall consider, if only Rule No.6 applies.
6. In reply, the counsel for the petitioner would contend that in terms of Rule 20(viiI) - 'any other extraordinary reasons', the case of the petitioner will have to be considered and that the petitioner has made an application to the Superintendent of Prisons with all the medical records.
7. The Additional Government Pleader, however, would submit that already a communication has been despatched, which has not been questioned by the petitioner and if any application is made by the petitioner, along with necessary medical records, it would be forwarded by the Superintendent of Prisons to the Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) and her request would be considered on merits and in accordance with law and the Rules applicable to the prisoners.
8. Taking note of the submissions of both sides, it is open to the petitioner to make necessary request enclosing the copy of the medical records, which may be scrutinised and forwarded to the authorities concerned by the Superintendent of Prisons and on receipt of the application, the authorities concerned shall take a decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner is entitled to make a request at the earliest, preferably, on or before 06.01.2016.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The Home Secretary, Home Prison Department Secretariat Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Additional Director General of Prison O/o. The Additional Director General of Prison, No.1 Gandhi Erwin Road Egmore, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Palayamkottai Tirunelveli.