JUDGMENT M. Sundar, J. 1. Captioned writ petition has been filed with a mandamusprayer for extension of ordinary leave for the writ petitioner''sspouse one Aslam, S/o.Jainulapudin, aged about 49 years, ConvictPrisoner No.18819 qua Central Prison, Coimbatore. 2. Dr. S.Manoharan, learned counsel for petitioner submitsthat this Court in and by an order dated 23.06.2023 made inW.P.No.7167 of 2023 had granted 22 days leave without escort(29.06.2023 to 20.07.2023). Our attention is drawn to the orderdated 23.06.2023 made in W.P.No.7167 of 2023 and a scannedreproduction of the same is as follows: 3. The abovesaid order captures the facts, circumstancesand grounds on which leave has been granted and trajectory thematter has taken thus far. Therefore, we are not setting out thesame again in this order. Suffice to say that the aforementionedorder shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. 4. Learned counsel submits that today is the 22nd day andthe convict prisoner has been complying with the condition diligentlywithout any deviation. 5. Issue notice. 6. Mr. E. Raj Thilak, learned State Additional PublicProsecutor accepts notice for all three respondents. 7. Owing to the limited scope of the captioned writpetition, main writ petition is taken up with the consent of both sides. 8. Learned Prosecutor submits that maximum number ofdays for which leave can be granted at one go in cases of thisnature is 40 days vide said Rules. To be noted, said Rules denotesTamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 and it is further tobe noted that the short forms, short references and abbreviationsused in the earlier order dated 23.06.2023 continue to be used inthe instant order for the sake of convenience and clarity. 9. As regards the 22 days ordinary leave, on a query fromthis Bench about the submission made by learned counsel for writpetitioner, learned Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that theconvict prisoner has indeed complied with the condition diligentlywithout any deviation. However, learned Prosecutor points out thattoday is the 22nd day and convict prisoner has to surrender by05.30 p.m. today. 10. We carefully considered the matter on hand.Dr.S.Manoharan, learned counsel for petitioner submits that theextension of leave is sought primarily because the medicaltreatment of the convict prisoner is not over and he needs to takefurther treatment. To be noted, medical ground for convict prisoner(besides other grounds) is one of the grounds on which leave wasgranted vide earlier order. 11. 10. We carefully considered the matter on hand.Dr.S.Manoharan, learned counsel for petitioner submits that theextension of leave is sought primarily because the medicaltreatment of the convict prisoner is not over and he needs to takefurther treatment. To be noted, medical ground for convict prisoner(besides other grounds) is one of the grounds on which leave wasgranted vide earlier order. 11. In the light of the continued medical treatment notbeing subjected to any disputation or contestation and in the light of22 days leave having passed without any untoward incident, weaccede to the prayer for extension of ordinary leave but we restrictthe extension to 18 days from tomorrow (21.07.2023) taking intoaccount the 40 days cap alluded to supra. 12. In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositivereasoning set out supra, we make the following order: 12. 1 The 22 days ordinary leave without escortgranted to convict prisoner Thiru.Aslam,S/o.Thiru.Jainulapudin, aged about 49 years, Life ConvictNo.18819, now lodged in Central Prison, Coimbatore iscontinued for a further period of 18 days i.e., from21.07.2023 to 07.08.2023; 12. 2 The conditions put in place vide earlier orderwill continue to operate for this extended 18 days leaveperiod also; 12.3 Though obvious we make it clear that theconvict prisoner shall surrender to the prison authorityi.e., Central Prison, Coimbatore on 07.08.2023 in theevening before dusk i.e., by 05.30 p.m. (we also make itclear that owing to this order, convict prisoner need notsurrender today i.e., 20.07.2023); 13. Be that as it may, both sides draw the attention of thisCourt to paragraph 7 of the earlier order dated 23.06.2023, whichreads as follows: ''7. As regards the hearing of the case inC.C.No.7 of 2014, on 28.06.2023, the TrialCourt is requested to give the next listing datewell after 20.07.2023 so as to enable the convictprisoner to avail 22 days leave which has beengranted by this Court.'' 14. Adverting to the earlier order, both sides submit thatthough this Court had requested the Trial Court i.e., Special Courtfor Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, Chennai to give the next listingdate ''well after 20.07.2023'' the Trial Court has listed C.C.No.7 of2014 today. This Court requested the Trial Court to give the listingdate ''well after 20.07.2023'' so as to enable the convict prisoner toavail 22 days leave granted by this Court and this has been clearlymentioned in the aforementioned paragraph 7 itself. This Court requested the Trial Court to give the listingdate ''well after 20.07.2023'' so as to enable the convict prisoner toavail 22 days leave granted by this Court and this has been clearlymentioned in the aforementioned paragraph 7 itself. Further in therequest to the Trial Court, this Court has not merely said ''after20.07.2023'' but has said ''well after 20.07.2023''. It is thereforesurprising as to how the learned Trial Court Judge presiding overSpecial Court for Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, Chennai haslisted C.C.No.7 of 2014 today i.e., 20.07.2023. We requisition anexplanation from the learned Judge presiding over Trial Court in thisLet a copy of this order be communicated to the learnedTrial Court Judge forthwith by this Registry. 15. Captioned writ petition is disposed of in the afore said manner.