SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41931

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L. Victoria Gowri, N. Senthilkumar, JJ
Sivapriya – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
WP Crl. No. 1158 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Sadhana
For the Respondents: S. Raja Kumar

Statutory authorities are legally obligated to consider and dispose of representations filed with them within a reasonable time, rather than allowing them to remain pending indefinitely.

Headnote:The case involves a petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the prison authorities to grant ordinary leave to a convict for the purpose of family medical treatment and marriage arrangements. The petitioner submitted that a representation dated 05.11.2025 remained unaddressed by the statutory authorities. The Court found that statutory authorities have a mandatory duty to consider representations and pass appropriate orders on merit without undue delay. The core issue is whether a statutory authority can remain silent on a representation submitted by a petitioner seeking relief regarding prisoner leave. The Court applied the principles of administrative law, holding that authorities are required to decide matters promptly and in accordance with law rather than keeping them pending indefinitely. The ratio relies on the obligation of public officials to perform their statutory functions within a reasonable timeframe. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 05.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders within one week.

Table of Content
1. court jurisdiction over prisoner's request for temporary release. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. mandatory duty of authorities to process statutory representations. (Para 4 , 5)

(Order of the Court was made by L.Victoria Gowri J.)

Seeking a direction to the respondents to grant ordinary leave for

30 days without escort to the convict Perumal, S/o.Chithiraipandi, aged about 50 years, bearing Convict No. 10059 confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Raja Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who accepts notice for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the daughter of the convict prisoner and leave has been sought for making arrangements for the treatment of convict prisoner’s wife and for the petitioner’s marriage. He further submits that the petitioner has also given a representation dated 05.11.2025 to the respondents in this regard but the same has not been considered.

4. It is needless to state that whenever a representation is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the authority to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top