Madras HC Disposes of Matter Requiring Issuance of the Writ of Mandamus

Must Read

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and...

Follow us

A writ petition has been filed under 226 before the Madras High Court in the case of Anjalai Gandhi v. The Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu, and Ors. The same was filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to grant seven days leave to the petitioner’s son by name Vijayakumar, son of Gandhi, a life convict from 07.08.2020 to 09.08.2020. This is for attending Eemakrigai rituals relating to the petitioner’s father. However, Justice Mr R. Pongiappan, after hearing, disposed of the matter of writ petition.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner’s husband, Gandhi, passed away on 23.05.2020. The life convict was allowed to leave on 24.05.2020 from 9 am to 10 am for the performance of the last rites. This was because the other siblings weren’t able to attend the same due to unforeseeable circumstances. The petitioner has decided to hold the ceremony of Uthirakiriyai for her husband. Hence, wants to get a leave from 07.08.2020 to 09.08.2020 for her son Vijaykumar, life convict.

Arguments of the Parties

The petitioner contended that the petitioner’s husband, Gandhi, passed away on 23.05.2020, and her son Vijaykumar, a life convict, was allowed to take part in his father’s last rights on 24.05.2020. The petitioner family has decided to hold the ceremony of Uthirakiriyai to her husband from 07.08.2020 to 09.08.2020. None of the other three children can do rituals for their father for a reasonable and justifiable reason. Hence, her plea, dated 27.07.2020, is to grant leave to her son, Vijaykumar, for three days, as mentioned above. This will enable him to take part in the Uthirakiriyai of his deceased father.

The respondents contended that the petitioner’s son could not claim the leave as he was already permitted to attend the last rites of his father. As per Rule 6 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, such leaves may only be granted in certain circumstances. Such circumstances are death, severe illness, or the wedding of certain relatives. 

Court’s Observation and Decision

On sympathetic and humanitarian grounds, the petitioner’s son is granted leave from 07.08.2020 to 08.08.2020. The condition is that Vijaykumar will, without any fail, report to the Inspector of Police, Kalayarkovil Police Station, Sivagangai District, daily at 10.00 am. The Court disposed of the petition.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -