STATE OF U.P.THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PRISON) U.P.LUCKNOW Vs. FAST TRACK COURT NO.2 MAHARAJGANJ AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been preferred by the State of U.P. for the relief of a writ in the nature of mandamus com­manding the respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with the transfer of respondent No. 3 from District Jail Gorakhpur to Cen­tral Jail Varanasi.

(2.) THE matter relates to Amar Mani Tripathi, who, it is alleged, has got a chequered criminal history with as many case 7 cases to his discredit. The respon­dent No. 3 it is stated was kept confined in District Jail Gorakhpur between the period 15th October, 2006 to 3rd March, 2007 and in the course of his incarceration in the aforesaid District Jail, it is further stated, owing to number of visitors swelling with each passing day, the smooth administra­tion of District Jail Gorakhpur was dis­rupted and security of jail in disarray and consequently, Authorities of District Jail sought the transfer of the respondent No. 3 from District Jail to Central Jail firstly on the ground that he was a convict and in this connection the Superintendent District Jail referred to relevant Regulation of the Jail manual who envisaged that a convict has to be lodged in Central Jail and sec­ondly, on the ground of the security of the respondent No. 3 and other co-prisoners was being rendered vulnerable in case the convict is allowed to be kept in District Jail Gorakhpur. The State Government acced­ing to the grounds urged in support of transfer, passed orders transferring the re­spondent No. 3 to Central Jail Varanasi. It is further stated that on 14.11.2007, the re­spondent No. 2 i.e. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur passed order in case No. 1103 of 2007 pending under section 406 IPC directing to detain the respondent No. 3 in District Jail Gorakhpur. It is further stated that the respondent No. 3 being a native of Gorakhpur is making all out ef­forts to stay back in Gorakhpur Jail and with a purpose to a design, he also maneuvered to have the application moved from the sureties in the case for withdrawal of sureties on 5.2.2008 which application, it is further stated was allowed the same day i.e. On 5.2.2008. It is further stated that in case No. 1101 of 2007 and in case No. 1104 of 2008 the aforesaid Court directed the respondent No. 3 to be produced on 13.2.2007 white in case No. 1103 of 2007, the respondent No. 3 was directed to be produced on 7.2.2008. It is further stated that a request was made to the Court to fix a common date in all the three cases but the request went unheeded and was not acted upon. Again, it is further stated, the District Magistrate Gorakhpur vide order dated 5.2.208 issued direction to the Supdt. Dis­trict Jail Gorakhpur to comply with the or­der dated 14.11.2007 whereby the respon­dent No. 3 had been transferred to Central Jail Varanasi. It is lamented that despite the Court having been intimated with the or­ders of the State Govt. the respondent No. 2 directed the respondent No. 3 to be kept in Gorakhpur jail attended with direction to the Jail authorities to comply with the order and intimate the Court by FAX.

(3.) WE have also heard learned A.G.A. at length who fiercely contended that it is a function relating to the admini­stration of the prison and the executive authorities are required to reckon with various factors including the security of the co-prisoners and also the prisoners and the petitioner cannot claim his being retained in a particular jail. The learned A.G.A. also adverted attention to the cases in which the petitioner is involved. To shore up his submissions, the learned A.G.A. referred to a decision of this Court rendered in writ petition No. 6719 (MB) of 2002. Raghtiraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiyya and another v. State of U.P. and others. We have also been taken through the Division Bench decision rendered on 11.12.2002 the relevant portion whereof is quoted below.