NOUSHAD.A Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed by brothers seeking similar reliefs. W.P.(Crl.) No.74 of 2023 is filed by Sri.Noushad seeking grant of ordinary leave for his brother, who is convict No.7575, lodged in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, while W.P(Crl.) No.246 of 2023 is filed by the said convict himself, seeking grant of ordinary leave to him and a declaration that he is entitled to parole

(2.) The facts stated in the second writ petition, i.e., W.P.(Crl.) No.246 of 2023 would suffice and is briefly mentioned as follows: Petitioner is life convict No.7575 who has been released on ordinary leave on 16 occasions earlier and had never violated any of the conditions of leave.

(3.) In the counter affidavits filed separately by the third and sixth respondents it is admitted that the crimes registered against the petitioner and Nisham were both referred as false after investigation. It is further stated that on 11/2/2023, a convict was found smoking beedi and after an enquiry petitioner was found to have supplied the beedis. Hence a punishment of forfeiture of 30 days remission was imposed as per proceedings dtd. 13/2/2023 under Sec. 82D of Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 (for short 'the Act'). It is further alleged that as per Rule 397 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 (for short 'the Rules'), leave can be granted only to well-behaved, eligible and convicted prisoners. In view of the punishment imposed, petitioner cannot be treated as a well-behaved prisoner for considering him to be granted leave. The sixth respondent questioned the maintainability of the writ petition apart from objecting to the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus and asserting that leave being a discretionary relief, falls purely within the realm of executive decision and discretion.