Teja Singh vs District Magistrate, Patiala and anr.

M.M. Punchhi. (Oral)

This is a petition for habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution, with a prayer that Dalbir Singh, the son of the petitioner be not sent to U.P. Jail.

A detention order was passed against the detenu under the provision of the National Security Act, 1980. lie was transferred under the orders of the Governor of Punjab to Fatehgarh Central Jail (Uttar Pradesh) So were some other detenus. A bunch of petitions were filed in this Court, challenging the action of the State Government in transfer ing the detenus to Uttar Pradesh. On behalf of the petitioner, Criminal Writ Petition No. 208 of 1984 was filed. I had dismissed those petitions by a common order on July 16, 1984.

The present petition has been filed at a time when the detenu was brought to Patiala in Punjab to enable him to take his B.A. PartI examination. Since his examination was likely to come to an end by August 25, 1994, and after that the detenu was expected to be taken back to his place of detention in Uttar Pradesh, the present petition has been filed, with a prayer that he be not sent to U.P. Jail and he kept in his home State of Punjab. The reason advanced is that while living there, the detenu has lost weight, tea is not served to him, there is no fan facility in the barrack In which he is kept, he is not allowed to keep a radio or transistor with him or even a wrist watch, only one newspaper was supplied etc. etc. In nutshell, his case is that had he been in Punjab, he would have been allowed better facilities than those which are made available to him in U.P. Jail.

In the petition the only respondents arrayed are the District Magistrate, Patiala, and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala. Obviously, they could not comment as to what are the conditions in Central Jai) Fatehgarh (Uttar Pradesh). No one from Uttar Pradesh has been arrayed as a respondent.

A similar effort was made on behalf of the detenu in his earlier writ petition. I had disposed it of in this manner.

"......The second branch of the argument that conditions of detention have to remain those as provided under the Punjab Detenus (Conditions or Detention) JUDGMENT 1981, has been raised without specific. ally alleging that the conditions of detention as in the Uttar Pradesh Jail are in comparison less favourable to the detenus in any case this Court in Sukhpal Singh and another v. State or Punjab and others, 1984 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 451 . Criminal Law Journal 428, has taken the view that conditions of detention of a detenu would be governed by the rules of the State to which he is transferred. There is no substance in the either limb of the argument which is hereby repelled. Thus, 1 hold the Second test as satisfied".

An argument had also been based on the question of quality of meals and diet allowance etc. With regard to that, 1 had observed as follows :

"The petitions are deficient of any clear leading in that regard as to where lies the pinch specifically. The argument was based on supposition merely because the place of detention was distantly apart from the State of Punjab. No material is available to show how any punishment is sought to be afflicted on the detenus".

The present petition is nothing but an effort to rake up the issue as settled in the earlier petition. What the petitioner could not obtain directly cannot now be allowed to obtain indirectly. If the State has chosen to give him the concession to be brought to Punjab for, he limited purpose of sitting in examination, it cannot be made worse by it. This Court can. not interfere if the State is keen to take back the detenu to the place of detention as fixed by it. This grievance with regard to the living conditions in Fatehgarh Central Jail could well be raised by the detenu, or someone on his behalf, in the Court having territorial jurisdiction over Fatehgarh Central Jail.

No relief is thus due to the petitioner in these proceedings. Dismissed.