Extraordinary leave under Rule 400(ii) of the Kerala Prisons Rules cannot be claimed as a right and is subject to the conditions prescribed, which do not include the maternal uncle's son as a close relative.

JUDGMENT :

Easwaran S., J.

The present Writ Petition (Criminal) is filed seeking the benefit of Rule 400(ii) of the Kerala Prisons & Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 (‘the Rules’, for short) and for a consequential direction to the 3^rd respondent to grant emergency leave to Sri. Abdul Latheef (Convict No.209/21) who is undergoing imprisonment at Central Prison and Correctional Home, Kannur on the ground that as per Ext.P1, he is required to attend the marriage of a close relative on 30.4.2025.

2. When the above writ petition came up for consideration on 22.4.2025, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to obtain instructions as regards the genuineness of Ext.P1 invitation card and thereafter posted the matter to 25.4.2025 and later to today i.e., on 29.4.2025.

3. Heard Sri.P.K. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.C. Ashi, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that though the cause projected under Ext.P1 is genuine, the convict is not entitled to the benefit of Rule 400(ii) of the Rules. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the marriage, which is stated to be solemnised on 30.4.2025 is not with regard to a close relative coming within the definition of Rule 400(ii) of the Rules. The marriage dated 30.4.2025 is of the petitioner’s maternal uncle’s son. Therefore, it is stated that there cannot be any direction to the respondents to grant the extra ordinary leave to Sri. Abdul Latheef (Convict No.209/21).

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though does not dispute the aforesaid facts would submit that nothing prevents this Court from considering the fact that the marriage stated to happen is that of his family member which will come within the purview of close relatives.

6. On a consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar, this Court finds that there is considerable force in the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor. Leave as a matter of fact cannot be claimed as a right and is dependent on the conditions prescribed under Rule 400(ii) of the Rules. It is within the domain of the State to prescribe conditions stipulating the leave for convicts. In the present case, it is beyond dispute that Sri. Abdul Latheef (Convict No.209/21) is undergoing imprisonment in S.C. No.176 of 2017 for the offences under Section 302 and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Unlike the case of an ordinary leave for which the convict is entitled to under Rule 397 of the Rules, the grant of extra ordinary leave under Rule 400(ii) of the Rules cannot be insisted as a matter of right. Therefore, considering the facts in totality, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for issuance of writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the prayer sought for in the writ petition is declined. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.