JUDGMENT : M.M. Sundresh, J. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to grant leave for 30 days to the detenu B.Robery Payas, S/o. Balasundaram, aged about 50 years, Life Convict No.4552 lodged at Central Prison -I, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066 and release him for 30 days leave to make arrangements in the marriage of his only son Thamilko. 1. The petitioner was arrested on 10.06.1991 and convicted by the Designated Court No.1, TADA Act, Poonamallee, Chennai in C.C.No. 3 of 1992 on 28.01.1998. By the orders of the Apex Court, the conviction was confirmed for the offence punishable under Section 120 B r/w 302 IPC while acquitting him for the charges under the TADA Act. 2. The petitioner has been under incarceration for about twenty eight years. Now, he seeks a direction to the respondents to grant leave for thirty days so as to make arrangements for his son’s marriage. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that for the co-convict, this Court, has already granted similar relief on similar facts. The conditions imposed therein have been complied with and she returned back to the prison. Therefore, the same discretion will have to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit though it is a fact that the co-convict was granted orders by this Court which have been complied with by the respondents, there is no permanent address that has been given by the petitioner. 5. By way of reply, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even in the affidavit filed, counsel by name N.Chandrasekaran has undertaken to provide staying facility in his house situated at No.5, Jeganathan Street, Kottivakkam, Adyar, Chennai - 41, within the jurisdiction of J8 Neelankarai Police Station, Chennai, for the purpose of staying. The petitioner would stay in the afore said place. 6. In this connection, we would like to quote the order passed in H.C.P.No. 764 of 2019 dated 05.07.2019. The following paragraphs would be apposite:- 7. We find merit in the submission made by the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner is having an unmarried daughter, aged about 27 years, who could not live with the parental guidance is not in dispute. The following paragraphs would be apposite:- 7. We find merit in the submission made by the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner is having an unmarried daughter, aged about 27 years, who could not live with the parental guidance is not in dispute. Rule 20 also provides for grant of ordinary leave in such an eventuality. However, Rule 22 speaks about the maximum of 30 days as ordinary leave. Though the Rule speaks about extension of the eligibility, the same can be only be exercised after the initial grant. Thus, we concur with the statement made by the learned State Public Prosecutor that 30 days is the maximum period which can be permitted at the time of granting leave under the Rules. We also take judicial notice of the fact that the State Government itself has made a recommendation for the premature release of the petitioner. From that, we can infer that her conduct is otherwise not adverse. If, in view of the State Government, the petitioner can be allowed to lead a normal life and she would not be a hindrance to the society otherwise, the request for leave can never be objected, which is also not the case before us. 8. On the second submission made by the petitioner with respect to the illness of her father-in-law, we are not inclined to go into it since the learned State Public Prosecutor has submitted that inasmuch as the said plea has not been raised and there is no material available to substantiate the same. Thus, the said issue is not gone into more so when we are satisfied with the genuineness of the first plea raised by the petitioner. 9. Considering the above and taking note of the fact that it is the first time in which the petitioner seeks ordinary leave coupled with the fact that some of the similarly placed persons have been granted ordinary leave and in the light of the recommendation made by the State Government itself, we are inclined to grant the petitioner 30 days ordinary leave. This leave is subject to the compliance of Rule 25. Needless to state that the petitioner is bound to give the names of the sureties along with the addresses apart from furnishing the place of stay with requisite particulars. 10. This leave is subject to the compliance of Rule 25. Needless to state that the petitioner is bound to give the names of the sureties along with the addresses apart from furnishing the place of stay with requisite particulars. 10. On a plea of the petitioner with respect to the payment of cost for the escort, we concur as there is no material to hold that the she is a woman of means. Admittedly, she and husband are in incarceration for decades. Rule 16 of the Rules also provides for escort by the Government at its own cost. Asking the petitioner to pay the cost would in a way take away the very order passed by us when it is impossible of compliance. In such view of the matter, we direct the respondents not to insist upon any cost for the escort to be provided to the petitioner. 11. We are inclined to grant the relief though there are certain procedural aspects which have not been complied with by the respondents. This is for two reasons. Firstly, the respondents themselves made the recommendation in favour of the petitioner and secondly, they have not taken any decision in this regard apart from having no serious objection. 12. In the result, the petitioner is granted 30 days ordinary leave to facilitate the arrangement and preparation for her daughter’s marriage. It is well open to her to fix the marriage if it is possible within the aforesaid time. This relief is granted to her subject to the compliance as indicated above. 13. The petitioner shall furnish the particulars as sought for by the respondents apart from due compliance of the Rules within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Due verification can be made by the respondents on the compliance of the petitioner within a period of 10 days thereafter. After such verification, the petitioner shall be granted ordinary leave for a period of 30 days. On completion of 30 days, the petitioner will have to surrender before the respondents at about 5.00 p.m. on the next day. 14. The statement made by the petitioner that she would not give any interview stands recorded. Her further statement that she would not have any meeting with the leaders of the political parties or any other organization also stands recorded. 7. 14. The statement made by the petitioner that she would not give any interview stands recorded. Her further statement that she would not have any meeting with the leaders of the political parties or any other organization also stands recorded. 7. The reasons assigned for grant of leave are not in dispute. Thus, the respondents are directed to consider and grant leave for thirty days subject to the very same conditions which we have imposed on the petitioner in H.C.P.No. 764 of 2019. The petitioner shall be released at 10.00 a.m. on 25.11.2019 and he shall return back to prison at 5.00 p.m. on 24.12.2019. The statement made in the affidavit filed by the counsel with respect to the address of the counsel stands recorded. 8. In view of the above, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of. Post the matter on 02.01.2020 ‘for reporting compliance’.