The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's constitutional power to relax rules, such as Rule 21(b) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, in suitable cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order bearing No.15623/Tha.Ku.3/2023, dated 01.08.2023 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consecutively direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 21 days without escort to the detenu Navaneethakrishnan, son of Rathinasami, aged about 35 years, bearing Convict No16412 at Central Prison, Coimbatore.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. This order will now dispose of the captioned Writ Petition.

2. Factual matrix in the captioned writ petition is that writ petitioner''s brother one Thiru.Navaneethakrishnan, son of Thiru. Rathinasami is a life convict (Convict No.16412) and he is now lodged in Central Prison, Coimbatore; that convict prisoner was convicted vide judgment dated 19.02.2013 in S.C.No.103 of 2012 on the file of ''II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur'' [hereinafter ''trial Court'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]; that as regards the sentence, life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1500/- with six months simple imprisonment in the event of default to pay fine for Section 302 IPC charge and 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1500/- with six months simple imprisonment as default clause qua fine for Section 392 IPC charge is the sentence; that the conviction and sentence were assailed by way of an appeal in Crl.A.No.257 of 2013 and the appeal was dismissed on 01.06.2015 confirming the conviction and sentence; that the convict prisoner has now served 7 years, 4 months and 13 days as of 22.08.2023; that the convict prisoner has not sought for either emergency leave or ordinary leave until this day; that writ petitioner (convict prisoner''s sister) sent a representation dated 25.07.2023 seeking 21 days ordinary leave for the convict prisoner primarily on the ground that convict prisoner''s mother has undergone a surgery, she is unwell and is therefore unable to go over to the prison and see her son owing to ill-health; that convict prisoner''s mother wants to spend some time with her son saying she is in the evening of her life; that convict prisoner''s mother also wants to partition some immovable properties in the presence of her children (including convict prisoner); that this 25.07.2023 representation given by the writ petitioner seeking 21 days ordinary leave was negatived vide an ''order dated 01.08.2023 bearing reference No.15623/jF/3/2023 made by the second respondent'' [hereinafter ''impugned order'' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity]; that the impugned order has been made primarily owing to Rule 21(b) of ''Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982'' [hereinafter ''said Rules'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] which says that convict prisoners sentenced under Sections 392 to 402 of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] are not eligible for ordinary leave; that assailing the impugned order, captioned writ petition has been filed in this Court on 16.08.2023.

3. Ms.S.Lakshmi, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for writ petitioner, in her campaign against the impugned order, adverting to 25.07.2023 representation given by the convict prisoner''s sister (writ petitioner) reiterated the contents of the same (captured supra in factual matrix narrative) and submitted that other than Rule 21(b) of said Rules, there is no other impediment for grant of leave. Learned counsel also emphasized the undisputed obtaining position that the convict prisoner has already served over seven years of sentence.

4. Issue notice.

5. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for both respondents.

6. Owing to the limited scope of the captioned writ petition, with the consent of both sides, main writ petition was taken up and heard out though the captioned writ petition is listed in the Admissio