IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. W.J.C No.129 of 2011 RIT LAL RAI, son of Shri Ramashish Rai, resident of Village Kothwan, P.S. Khagaul, District-Patna. ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Inspector General, Prisons, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Patna. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 5. The Superintendent, Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna. 6. The Superintendent, Bhagalpur Central Jail. ---Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr Yogesh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, A.C. to G.P. 23 ----------- 2. 31.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner through this writ application has prayed for quashing of the order vide Memo No.4788 dated 26th of October, 2010 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Bihar, Patna, as contained in Annexure 1, whereby the petitioner, who was chargesheeted in 18 criminal cases and was in Aadarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna was transferred to Bhagalpur Central Jail. Mr Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that although in terms of sub-section (3) of section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), power to transfer is vested with the State Government or the Inspector General of Prisons, nonetheless the power is to be exercised - 2 - independently after applying the independent application of mind, that is to say, on the materials available on the record. It is submitted that on perusal of the impugned order it would appear that firstly, the order of transfer is without application of mind and secondly, the order is bad in law as the order is passed on the recommendation of the District Magistrate, Patna and on the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. As such, the impugned order has been passed without application of independent mind and it is only on the approval of the above recommendation and report and consequently the same deserves to be quashed on this solitary ground alone. It is further submitted by Mr Verma that one of the conditions for effecting the aforesaid impugned order was that before the petitioner could be transferred, it was to be ensured that there was no objection from the local court or this Court. No order of the local court or the High Court has been received in this regard and, as such, the same having not been complied with, the order could not had been implemented. Besides the above, it has been submitted that on account of transfer, the trial of the petitioner gets delayed as the speedy trial is a fundamental right. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader no.23 appearing for the State submits that on perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the Inspector General of Prisons, Bihar, Patna has taken independent decision after due consideration of the materials on the record, including the recommendation of the District Magistrate as also the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna to the effect that keeping the - 3 - petitioner in Aadarsh Jail, Patna in every likelihood will be creating trouble in smooth conduct of the election of the Bihar Vidhan Sabha as several Sanhas were recorded and the friends of the petitioner having criminal antecedents were creating an environment of fear psychosis. It is accordingly submitted that the competent authority taking into consideration all the materials available on the records and having taken due consideration independently passed the impugned order on administrative grounds and in public interest. As regards any objection of the local court or the High Court, there was no objection on the record and, as such, the order cannot be faulted. It has further been submitted that the impugned order was passed on 26th of October, 2010 transferring the petitioner from Aadarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna to Bhagalpur Central Jail and the period is to lapse by 26th of April, 2011 i.e., now only few days have left. Learned counsel, on instructions, submits that there is no proposal to extent the period as mentioned in the impugned order. Considering the rival submission of the parties, it is not in dispute that the Inspector General of Prisons is also vested with the power to transfer under sub-section (3) of section 29 of the Act. The primary submission of the petitioner is that the impugned order of transfer is merely an approval of the recommendation of the District Magistrate and the report of the Superintendent of Police. However, on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the Inspector General of Prisons has passed the order after due consideration of all the materials, including the recommendation of the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police and has taken - 4 - independent decision and it cannot be faulted in law. As regards the submissions of the petitioner that the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 1,could not be superseded any judicial order. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties it does not appear that any such objection was on the record before implementing the order, as contained in Annexure 1, and as such, on that count as well, the order cannot be held to be illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought on the record any foundational facts to support that the speedy trial of the petitioner has been delayed. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and in view of the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)