1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.18 OF 2009 (Sheikh Rizwan Sheikh Rashid vs. The Inspector General (Prisons) and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 13, 2009 Heard Shri Kukdey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Shri Kukdey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that by the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the Circular dated 5/12.9.2008 issued by the Inspector General (Prisons). It is contended that earlier facility was provided to cook non-vegetarian food, such as mutton, chicken, biryani, etc. in the canteen and same was supplied to the prisoners. It is submitted 2 that withdrawal of the said facility by the Inspector General of Prisons has deprived the prisoners to cook the non-vegetarian food in the kitchen of canteen and, therefore, it is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Shri Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that the said Circular was issued in view of Rule 43 in Chapter XXIV of the Maharashtra Prison Manual as well as Clause in the Jail Accounts Manual, which read thus : “No chula or fire place of cooking shall be allowed to be constructed in any part of the prison other than the kitchen, except under special circumstances, which shall be reported by the Superintendent to the Regional Deputy Inspector General.” “If appropriate number of prisoners collectively wants a particular un-prohibited and unobjectionable article other than those which are generally sold in the Jail Canteen vide sub- section 6(1) above may be permitted at the discretion of the above Superintendent.” It is contended that in various prisons, canteen was being run as a parallel kitchen and in contravention 3 of above provisions, for cooking non-vegetarian food whereas only one canteen is permitted in the premises of prison. It is submitted that the action of the Inspector General of Prisons is consistent with the aforesaid provisions. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the above referred provisions. Perusal of the above referred provisions shows that except the kitchen, which is meant for cooking food for prisoners, no other kitchen can be established in the premises of prison. In that view of the matter, action of the Inspector General of Prisons withdrawing the said facility, in our view, is consistent with the above referred provisions. No case is made out for showing indulgence. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj