This Contempt petition is filed for punishing the respondent for committing contempt of Court by her willful disobedience of the order of this Court passed in W.P.(MD)No.15354 of 2017, dated 23.08.2017.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
3. It is not despite that this Court in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in WP(MD)No.15354 of 2017, has passed the following order:
?3.The Parole leave sought for by the petitioner is for a period of one week. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner prayed for parole leave for a period of one week, he is prepared to restrict the period of leave for two days only.
4.Earlier representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's brother committed crime and he was undergoing imprisonment from 11.04.2017 and as per rule 302 (4) the brother of the petitioner is not entitled to any parole leave for a period of three months for the commission of the said offence. It was further stated in the order that the petitioner is at liberty to make an application, after the period during which he is prevented by the rule to make such applications. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner submitted an application on 05.08.2017, after the period prescribed for the renewal of earlier request for parole leave.
5.However, even the learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner's request, for grant of parole leave to her brother, can be considered if such permission is availed by the petitioner with escorts. The learned Special Government Pleader has reasons to make these submissions in view of the specific instructions he had received from the department.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also undertakes that the petitioner's brother is willing to avail the parole leave with escorts to her brother. The learned Special Government Pleader, however, stated that the petitioner is entitled to apply for the parole only if she is prepared to produce necessary certificates, so that the respondent will be in a position to consider the eligibility of the petitioner to avail the parole leave at free of cost.?
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that earlier, the petitioner has requested for grant of parole leave for her brother, for a period of one week. But, it was restricted for a period of two days only. However, the respondent has granted parole leave on 06.09.2017 from 06.00 a.m to 06.00 p.m. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this order is not in compliance of the orders of this Court in its true letter and spirit.
5. Except recording the fact that the petitioner's counsel has restricted the request for grant of parole leave from one week to two days, this Court has not given any specific direction to the respondent to grant parole leave either for two days or for any specific period. Further, this Court has not held that the petitioner is eligible to apply for parole leave and directed the respondent and to consider the petitioner's application with regard to the eligibility to avail the parole leave with escorts at free of cost.
6.Today, the learned Special Government Pleader produced the proceedings of the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. As per the proceedings dated 05.09.2017, in view of the incident where an attempt was made to the life of the petitioner, parole leave was granted with strong escorts on 06.09.2017 from 06.00 a.m to 6.00 p.m., with a condition to hand over the petitioner by 06.00 pm on 06.09.2017. This order is not in violation of the direction of this Court as no portion of the direction of this Court has been disobeyed.
7. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had not considered her plea for grant of two days of parole leave, is not relevant as the issue was neither addressed before this Court nor considered to give positive direction to the respondent.
8. In such view of the matter, this Court finds that there is no contempt as no part of the orders of this Court has been violated. Hence, this Contempt petition is closed.
To The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
.