Jaya v. The State
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping…
Judgment
W.P.(Clr.)No.841 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16-09-2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANUANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHARW.P.(Crl.)No.841 of 2025 Jaya,W/o Josepraja... PetitionerVs.The State rep. by its1. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Coimbatore Zone, Coimbatore.
The Superintendent, Open Prison, Ondiputhur, Coimbatore District.. ... RespondentsPRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant 21 days of ordinary leave without escort to the detenue, Josepraja, S/o Maria Francis, aged 45 years, bearing Convict No.1264 and PID No.51653 at Open Prison, Ondiputhur, CoimbatoreFor Petitioner: Mr.S.PandiyanFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERPage 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Clr.)No.841 of 2025(The order of the Court was made by J.Nisha Banu,J.)This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant 21 days of ordinary leave without escort to the detenue, Josepraja, S/o Maria Francis, aged 45 years, bearing Convict No.1264 and PID No.51653 at Open Prison, Ondiputhur, Coimbatore2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. Though the petitioner has prayed to grant 21 days ordinary leave without escort to the detenu, it is seen from the records that the petitioner has made a representation to the authorities and the same has not been consider so far.
Operative part
It is needless to point out that whenever a representation is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time. Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Clr.)No.841 of 20255. Therefore, this Court, without going into the merits of the petitioner's representation or the contentions of the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, directs the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.08.2025, seeking to grant leave to the detenu/husband, if not already disposed of and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from today and communicate the same to the petitioner.6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. (J.NISHA BANU, J.) (S. SOUNTHAR, J.)16-09-2025vsiTo1. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Coimbatore Zone, Coimbatore.2. The Superintendent, Open Prison, Ondiputhur, Coimbatore District.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Clr.)No.841 of 2025J. NISHA BANU, J.andS. SOUNTHAR, J.vsi W.P.(Crl.)No.841 of 202516-09-2025Page 4 of 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.