Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 12.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.15053 of 2013, wherein, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that there is no sufficient cause made out for granting emergency leave on the ground that there is inconsistency with the claim of the petitioner that on the one hand, the petitioner stated that her husband's mother is really in serious illness and on the other hand, she claimed that her family organized ear-boring ceremony of her daughter and therefore, rejected the petitioner's claim. 2. Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the appellant would consistently plead that the genuineness of the appellant's claim for emergency leave for her husband based on his mother's illness by considering the Medical Certificate, has to be taken note of and therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the petitioner's claim cannot be sustained, as under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, it is always permissible to grant emergency leave for a genuine reason. 3. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the appellant's claim for emergency leave was rejected as the reasons stated were not acceptable and not supported with Medical Certificate; the emergency leave for ear-boring ceremony cannot be a ground for consideration under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, and, therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with. 4. Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules would make it clear that emergency leave may be granted for attending death or serious illness of father, mother, wife, husband, son, daughter, full brother or full sister or the wedding of son, daughter, full brother or full sister of the prisoner. As per Rule 13, the total period of emergency leave to be granted to a prisoner shall be fifteen days in a year to be spread over four spells, subject to the maximum of six days in any one spell according to the need of the prisoner on the occasion and the remaining nine days in three spells, each spell not exceeding three days at a time. 5. 5. Keeping the above position in mind, if we look at the present case, the Writ Petition is filed is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent for grant of 10 days emergency leave to her husband, who is a life convict, confined in Madurai Central Prison, to see his ailing mother and also for attending the ear-boring ceremony of his daughter. 6. In this context, it is to be stated that firstly there is no provision in the Rules for grant of 10 days of emergency leave, as requested by the petitioner, in one spell, which can be only a maximum of six days. Though the petitioner has mentioned the illness of the mother of her husband as a reason, the same is not supported by a reliable document viz., medical certificate issued by a competent authority, namely, a Government doctor. Instead, she produced a certificate issued by a doctor of a private hospital in regard to the illness of the mother of her husband, which, we feel, cannot be trustworthy. In addition, she added the performance of ear-boring ceremony of their daughter also as the other reason, which reason does not afford any entitlement for grant of emergency leave to the husband of the petitioner. 7. Grant of emergency leave as enunciated under the relevant rules has to be supported with relevant documents. Further, emergency leave has to be granted only in cases of emergent situations. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant, holding that granting emergency leave to the prisoner to attend the ear-boring ceremony of his daughter will set a bad precedent and, if it is so granted, every prisoner will seek emergency leave on the said ground. Hence, we confirm the order of the learned Single Judge. 8. At the end of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant would make a consistent plea that the appellant may be permitted to make a fresh representation seeking emergency leave with supporting documents and, if such a representation is made, the respondent may consider the same, to which the learned Special Government Pleader has accepted. 9. In view of the above, this Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. In view of the above, this Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. However, it is open to the appellant to make a fresh representation with genuine supporting documents for emergency leave, in which event, it is for the respondent to consider the same in accordance with law. No costs.