JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the leave for 30 days without escort from 18.09.2023 to the detenu Palani, son of Sankarapandi, aged about 47 years, the Convict No.4296, detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.) M. Sundar, J. 1. Captioned writ petition pertains to extension of ordinary leave for a convict prisoner Thiru.Palani [Convict No.4296], son of Thiru.Sankarapandi on the ground that he continues to be unwell, requires further medical treatment and needs to be under the management of an Endovascular Surgeon. 2. Dr.S.Manoharan, learned counsel for writ petitioner drew our attention to our earlier order dated 16.08.2023 made in W.P.No.24012 of 2023, which reads as follows: ''This order will now dispose of the captioned writ petition. 2. Factual matrix in a nutshell is that petitioner''s son Thiru.Palani, son of Thiru. Sankarapandi, is a life convict (Convict No.4296) now lodged in Central Prison, Palayamkottai having been convicted and sentenced vide S.C.No.61 of 1999 in Crime No.150 of 1996 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge''s Court, Tirunelveli; that the writ petitioner''s request for 28 days ordinary leave was negatived in and by an ''order signed by the third respondent on 10.03.2023 bearing reference No.1323/jF/2/2023'' [hereinafter ''impugned order'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]; that captioned writ petition has been filed in this Court on 09.08.2023 assailing the impugned order and seeking 28 days ordinary leave for the convict prisoner i.e., petitioner''s son. 3. Dr.S.Manoharan, learned counsel adverting to the impugned order submitted that only ground on which impugned order has been made is Rule 22 of ''Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982'' [hereinafter ''said Rules'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and G.O.No.205 dated 25.04.2022 i.e., the ground that one year has not elapsed since 20 days ordinary leave was last availed by the convict prisoner [21.09.2023 at 10.30 am to 10.10.2023 at 05.30 pm]. 4. Issue notice. 5. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, accepted notice for all three respondents and submitted on instructions that Rule 22 of said Rules captioned ''Eligibility for ordinary leave'' and more particularly sub-rule (3) thereat says that a prisoner shall be granted a second or subsequent spell of ordinary leave after completion of one year of imprisonment from the date on which he returned from the last ordinary leave. Adverting to this sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 (to be noted, only Rule 22 has been mentioned in the impugned order but learned Prosecutor drew our attention to sub-rule (3) thereat), it was submitted that convict prisoner returned on 10.10.2022 at 05.30pm (after availing leave on the last occasion) and therefore, one year therefrom will elapse only after 1 ½ months from today. 6. In response to the aforementioned submission, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted by way of reply that the aforementioned earlier spell of 20 days was not granted by the Executive arm i.e., prison authorities but was granted by a Hon''ble Division Bench in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court vide order dated 16.09.2022 made in W.P (MD) No.5749 of 2022. 7. The aforementioned order has not been annexed in the typed-set of papers. Therefore, this Court ferreted out the same from the official website and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: “IMAGE” “IMAGE” “IMAGE” “IMAGE” “IMAGE” 8. From the submissions made by both sides, it comes to light that convict prisoner is entitled to 28 days leave and only impediment is one year from the date on which he returned (returned after earlier spell of 20 days leave) had not elapsed and hence sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of said Rules is the only impediment. In this view of the matter, considering that one year would be elapsing in less than eight weeks from today and also taking into account the undisputed position that grounds on which leave was granted by the other Hon''ble Division Bench continues to exist / enure in favour of the convict prisoner''s leave plea, we deem it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order, set aside the same and grant 28 days ordinary leave to the convict prisoner on the same conditions (with minor adaptations) on which earlier 20 days leave was granted by the other Hon''ble Division Bench. 9. 9. In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning, the following order is passed: i) impugned order signed on 10.03.2023 by the third respondent bearing reference No.1323/jF/2/2023 is set aside; ii) 28 days ordinary leave is granted to the convict prisoner from 21.08.2023 (Monday) 10.30am to 18.09.2023 (Monday) 05.30pm; iii) Convict prisoner shall stay at Arikesavanallur Village, Cheranmahadevi Village, Tirunelveli District and petitioner shall not move out of this jurisdiction during this period without intimating the jurisdictional police station; iv) Convict prisoner shall go over to the jurisdictional police station i.e., Mukkoodal Police Station, Tirunelveli District, every day at 05.30pm and sign in the Register there during the entire period of 28 days; v) Convict prisoner need not sign i.e., adhere to the above condition on 21.08.2023 and 18.09.2023 as those are the dates on which leave will commence and end; vi) Convict prisoner shall surrender in the office of the third respondent on 18.09.2023 (Monday) by dusk i.e., by 05.30pm; Captioned writ petition disposed of in the aforesaid manner.'' 3. Thereafter, learned counsel took us through detailed medical reports but it will suffice to say that a certificate dated 08.09.2023 issued by one medical doctor and prescription of a Endovascular Surgeon dated 07.09.2023 were produced to show that the convict prisoner needs continued medical attention and needs to be under the management of a Endovascular Surgeon inter alia owing to neuropathy. 4. Issue notice. 5. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for all three respondents. Owing to the narrow compass on which captioned writ petition turns, with the consent of both sides, main writ petition was taken up and heard out. 6. It is seen that the writ petitioner is convict prisoner''s mother and she is 81 years old. 7. Learned Prosecutor, responding to a query from this Bench, submitted that the convict prisoner has complied with Conditions adumbrated vide sub-paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of paragraph 9 of our aforementioned 16.08.2023 order; 8. As regards Rule 22(3) of ''Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982'' [hereinafter ''said Rules'' for the sake of convenience and clarity], the same has been dealt with in our aforementioned order and therefore, we are not embarking upon the exercise of setting out the same again. Suffice to say that the aforementioned earlier order shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order and the principle applies. 9. Suffice to say that the aforementioned earlier order shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order and the principle applies. 9. In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning set out thus far, as the fact that convict prisoner requires further medical attention and needs to be under the management of a Endovascular Surgeon, leave already granted vide 16.08.2023 order in W.P.No.24012 of 2023 is extended upto 18.10.2023. Conditions for leave adumbrated in sub- paragraphs (i) to (vi) of our aforementioned order will apply mutatis mutandis to the present extended period of leave also. The convict prisoner shall now surrender in the office of the third respondent on 18.10.2023 by dusk i.e., by 05.30 pm. We make it clear that if any further extension of leave is sought, the same will be considered based on the then obtaining medical condition i.e., if there is any further unfortunate downturn, as the present extension can be treated as peremptory for the present owing to the nature of medical condition projected before us. Captioned writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directives. There shall be no order as to costs.