ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 29.10.2014 stating that the petitioner has filed an application for ordinary leave for 90 days under health ground and only the Additional Director General of Police and Home Secretary are the competent authorities to award ordinary leave, but the impugned order has been passed by the third respondent. Hence, he prays for setting aside the order. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is suffering from Pulmonary decease. Hence, he wants to get treatment from the Hospital. Hence, he prays for ordinary leave of 90 days. 3. Resisting the same, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner is convicted for the offence under Section 396 IPC and he served 18 years 3 months 26 days of imprisonment as on 16.05.2015. He further submits that he is not eligible for ordinary leave as per Rule 21 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rule, 1982. He further submits that while he was released on five days leave as per the order of this court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.9482 of 2010 dated 09.04.2010, he escaped from lawful custody and he had involved in the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and remanded in the Sub Jail, Thiruthani in connection with Crime No.905 of 2011 of Thiruthani Police Station. Therefore, he is not eligible for any leave. Furthermore, he states that in the jail, all the medical facilities are available. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 4. Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, now this Court has to decide whether the third respondent is a competent person and whether the petitioner is entitled to get ordinary leave. 5. Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rule, 1982, deals competent authority with eligibility of persons who may be granted ordinary leave and it reads as under: "The Government are the competent authority to issue order of release of prisoners on ordinary leave". 6. In the above provision, it was stated that the Government alone is the competent authority to issue an order of release of a prisoner in ordinary leave. 6. In the above provision, it was stated that the Government alone is the competent authority to issue an order of release of a prisoner in ordinary leave. Subsequently, it was amended that the Additional Director General of Police (Prison) is also competent to grant leave. 7. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Superintendent of Central Prison has passed the impugned order and as per the above provision, he is not a competent person to grant ordinary leave and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Now, this Court has to decide whether the petitioner is entitled the ordinary leave. Rules 20 and 21 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rule, 1982, deals with the grounds of grant of ordinary leave. 9. Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rule, 1982, deals with non eligibility of for ordinary leave. In Section 21 (d)(5) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rule, 1982, reads as follows:- "21.Non-Eligibility for Ordinary Leave:- The following categories of prisoners shall not be eligible for ordinary leave:- a) Offenders classified as habituals ; b) Prisoners sentenced under Sections 392 to 402 of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860) c) Prisoners where presence is considered dangerous or prejudicial to public peace and tranquility; d) Prisoners who are considered dangerous or who are involved in the following prison offences:- (1) assault (2) outbreak (3) riot (4)mutiny (5)escape (6)instigation to serious violations of prison rules (7)strike (e)Prisoners committed to prisons in default of furnishing security to keep the peace or be of good behaviour; (f) Prisoners suffering from unsoundness of mind or contagious diseases. In such cases the eligibility shall be decided in accordance with opinion of the Medical Officer." 10. In the above provision, it was stated that once a prisoner escaped from the custody while he was on parole from the police custody, he is not eligible for any leave. So, considering the same, in the impugned order, the said reason has been given. However, this Court has already held that the Superintendent of Central Prison is not a competent person. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. 11. So, considering the same, in the impugned order, the said reason has been given. However, this Court has already held that the Superintendent of Central Prison is not a competent person. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. 11. On perusal of the records and Rule 21(d)(5) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rule, 1982, since the petitioner was granted five days leave with police escort in Crl.O.P(MD)No.9482 of 2010 dated 09.04.2010 and he was escaped from the lawful custody and involved in the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and remanded in Sub-Jail, Thiruthani, then only he identified and placed him into jail for undergoing the remaining period, so he is not entitled to avail the ordinary leave. Furthermore, medical facilities are available in the Central jail. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to avail the ordinary leave. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.