THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.3578, 7949, 7374 and 8636 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: In view of common question of law and fact, all these writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenient disposal of these cases, I refer to the facts as alleged in Writ Petition No.3578 of 2011. In Writ Petition No.3578 of 2011, the wife of the convict person, by name, Ayub Khan, seeks directions by way of mandamus to the respondents to transfer her husband from Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, to Central Prison, Cherlapalli, Ranga Reddy District. The Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, vide Memo bearing No.SB5/365/2010, dated 07.02.2011, ordered for transfer of 15 convict prisoners on administrative grounds to other central prisons. So far as the husband of the petitioner in W.P.No.3578 of 2011 is concerned, he is a convict prisoner, serving sentence in Central Prison, Cherlapalli and was transferred to Central Prison, Visakhapatnam. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no reason or justification for transferring her husband to a far-off place from Cherlapalli. It is submitted that no enquiry was conducted, there was no report from the Jailer and though her husband is serving sentence in the jail at Cherlapalli from the last several years, there was no allegation against him. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the third respondent - Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapalli. In the counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that there was an incident on 17.11.2010 at 9.00 a.m. in the jail premises, in which, one Convict Prisoner No.3063, by name, Jaheer Ahmed, who was on the first floor of Godavari Block, spit through the window on Convict Prisoner No.7090, by name, Ramu, who was there on downstairs cleaning the premises, which led to a quarrel between them. It is further stated that the said quarrel further led to clashes between two groups due to involvement of some miscreant prisoners and pelted stones against each other, as such, immediately, an alarm was raised and all the prisoners were sent to their barracks and locked and brought the situation under control. It is also stated that 15 prisoners were identified as they were responsible for the whole incident, causing inconvenience to the administration of prison, as such, they were transferred to different central prisons on administrative grounds for smooth running of the jail administration and to avoid untoward incidents. In all these writ petitions, Sri C.Panduranga Rao, Sri K.Suresh Reddy, Sri V.Raghunath, learned counsel for the respective petitioners submitted that there was no enquiry conducted before transferring the prisoners to various jails. It is submitted that under the Prisoners Act, 1900 and the Rules made thereunder, there is no power or authority for the respondents to transfer the prisoners from one jail to another and that no valid reasons have been assigned before such transfers are effected. It is also submitted that such transfers are in violation of the procedure contemplated under Rules 306 and 308 of the Andhra Pradesh Prisons Rules, 1979 (for short ‘the Act’), framed under the Prisoners Act, 1900. It is to be noticed that Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900, empowers the Inspector General of Prisons to order for removal of a prisoner from one prison to any other prison in the State. It is also to be noticed that Rule 1039 of the Rules also empowers the Inspector General to sanction transfer of prisoner from one jail to another within the State. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no report from the jailer, when the third respondent, who is the Superintendent of Central Prison, Cherlapalli, has sworn to in the affidavit and narrated the clashes on account of occurrence on 17.11.2010, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. As per the averments in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that memo, dated 07.02.2011, was issued on administrative grounds for smooth running of the prison administration. Although the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have argued on the ground that such transfer is in violation of Rules 306 and 308 of the Rules, from a perusal of the said Rules, it is clear that they will apply only in cases with regard to the offences committed by the prisoners but for the purpose of administrative transfer, the said Rules will not come into picture at all. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality for issuance of directions as prayed for. The writ petitions are devoid of merit and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st APRIL, 2011. kvni