LAWS(GJH)-1999-9-46

PARSHOTTAMBHAI BECHARBHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On September 30, 1999
PARSHOTTAMBHAI BECHARBHAI SOLANKI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Mukesh A. Patel, APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner, a prisoner in Central Jail, Baroda praying for direction for his transfer from Central Jail, Baroda to Central Jail, Ahmedabad. This prayer made by the petitioner was not accepted by the respondents. In reply to this Special Criminal Application it is given out by the respondents that who are to be kept in Central Jail at Ahmedabad and the petitioner's case does not fall in that criteria and as a result thereof his prayer for transfer from Central Jail, Baroda to Central Jail, Ahmedabad rightly been rejected by the respondents. I do not find any substance in this contention. It is true guidelines are framed for keeping a prisoner at different Central Jails but it is not the case where a prisoner from one jail to another cannot be transferred in any circumstances. These are the broad guidelines and there may be exceptional cases in which a prisoner may be ordered to be transferred from one jail to another jail on its own facts. If the petitioner is claiming his transfer to Central Jail at Ahmedabad on the ground that his family consists of his mother, younger brother, 2 minor children and wife because of poverty are not in a position to meet with the petitioner at Central Jail, Baroda, the matter has to be considered on its own facts. The petitioner further stated, which is not in dispute that he has not seen his family members for the last 6 years.

(3.) In the State, if we go by the litigation which is there in this court reveals that the citizens are having sufficient legal literacy. Even from the jails the petitions are coming up before this court which further suggestive of the fact the litigants have sufficient legal literacy. If that is the position in this state it is expected of the officer concerned while rejecting the application of the petitioner to pass a reasoned order. In the case in hand the learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that in the order of the officer concerned rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for his transfer from Central Jail, Baroda to Central Jail, Ahmedabad no reasons are recorded. Only on this short ground, the impugned order in this Special Criminal Application cannot be allowed to stand.