G. B. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is for issuing direction to the opposite parties to release the petitioner from Central Jail, Agra and sending him back to the District Jail, Lucknow. The petitioner was arrested on 12-5-1985 at Lucknow in connection with some offence and was sent to District Jail, Lucknow on 13-5-1985. He was served with the detention order dt. 30-4-1985 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, along with the grounds of detention on 13-5-1985 in that District Jail. The detention order was passed under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 on the ground that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. From 13-5-1985 to 26-6-1985 he remained in the District Jail, Lucknow. On 27-6/-1985 he was transferred to the Central Jail, Agra and ever since he has been in that Central Jail. The present petition has been filed on the allegations that according to the detention order passed by the District Magistrate on 30-4-1985 he was to be detained in the District Jail, Lucknow and his detention in the Central Jail, Agra is causing much hardship to him as well as his relations who want to meet him. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties it has been stated that he was transferred from District Jail, Lucknow to Central Jail, Agra on account of administrative and security reasons and his detention in Central Jail, Agra is not illegal or invalid. ( 2 ) IT was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer of the petitioner from the District Jail, Lucknow to Central Jail, Agra has been made without any satisfactory reasons and his detention at such a distant place is punitive. In support of this argument he placed reliance on A. K. Roy v. Union of India, 1982 Cri LJ 340 : ( AIR 1982 SC 710 ). The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner was transferred to Central Jail, Agra on account of variety of reasons and in pursuance of the order of the State Government which was fully competent to pass such an order and the detention of the petitioner in the Central Jail, Agra is not punitive by any stretch of reasoning. He, on the other hand, relied upon Mrs. He, on the other hand, relied upon Mrs. Geetinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 1409 . ( 3 ) SECTION 5 of the National Security Act reads as follows :"5. Power to regulate place and conditions of detention :- Every person in respect of whom a detention order has been made shall be liable : - (a) to be detained in such place and under such conditions, including conditions as to maintenance, discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline, as the appropriate Government may, by general or special order specify, and (b) to be removed from one place of detention to another place of detention, whether within the same State or in another State, by order of the appropriate Government; provided that no order shall be made by a State Government under clause (b) for the removal of a person from one State to another State except with the consent of the Government of that other State. " ( 4 ) A glance on S. 5 is sufficient to show that the State Government has power to remove a detenu from one place of detention to another place of detention. In Mrs. Geetinder Kaur v. State of Punjab AIR 1985 SC 1409 at page 1410, following observations were made with regard to the place of detention : "the place of detention is a matter for the administrative choice of the detaining authority, and a Court would be justified in interfering with that decision only if it was in violation of any specific provision of the law or was vitiated by arbitrary considerations and mala fides. " ( 5 ) IT is not the case of the petitioner that he has been transferred to Agra Jail mala fide or arbitrarily. He has challenged it simply on the ground that it is punitive. It has been clearly stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties that the petitioner was transferred from District Jail, Lucknow to Central Jail, Agra for administrative and security reasons. At the time of arguments the learned Additional Government Advocate placed the record before us and it appears to be correct that the petitioner was transferred for the aforesaid reasons. At the time of arguments the learned Additional Government Advocate placed the record before us and it appears to be correct that the petitioner was transferred for the aforesaid reasons. From this it is clear that the transfer of the petitioner from Lucknow Jail to Central Jail, Agra was not arbitrary or mala fide and the order for transfer was passed on valid considerations. ( 6 ) THE passage from A. K. Roy v. Union of India 1982 Cri LJ 340 : ( AIR 1982 SC 710 ), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is reproduced below :"it is neither fair nor just that a detenu should have to suffer detention in "such place" as the Government may specify. The normal rule has to be that the detenu will be kept in detention in a place which is within the environs of his or her ordinary place of residence. If a person ordinarily resides in Delhi, to keep him in detention in a far off place like Madras or Calcutta is a punitive measure by itself which, in matters of preventive detention at any rate, is not to be encouraged. Besides, keeping a person in detention in a place other than the one where he habitually resides makes it impossible for his friends and relatives to meet him or for the detenu to claim the advantage of facilities like having his own food. The requirements of administrative convenience, safety and security may justify in a given case the transfer of a detenu to a place other than that where he ordinarily resides, but that can only be by way of an exception and not as a matter of general rule (Emphasis supplied ). Even when a detenu is required to be kept in or transferred to a place which is other than his usual place of residence, he ought not to be sent to any far off place which, by the very reason of its distance, is likely to deprive him of the facilities to which he is entitled. Whatever smacks of punishment must be scrupulously avoided in matters of preventive detention. Whatever smacks of punishment must be scrupulously avoided in matters of preventive detention. " ( 7 ) EVEN from the above cited passage it transpires that for administrative convenience, safety and security a detenu can be transferred from one place to another though the normal rule is that the detenu should be kept in detention in a place where he ordinarily resides. In the present case as observed above there was justification for the State Government to transfer the petitioner from District Jail, Lucknow to the Central Jail, Agra. Moreover the transfer of the petitioner from one Jail to another appears to have been made in his interest. Apart from this, Agra is not at such a distance where relations who want to meet the petitioner cannot reach. The difficulty in meeting is to be considered and weighed with the security of the petitioner and the administrative reasons. If all these facts are considered together, it becomes difficult to hold that the transfer has been made by way of punishment or simply to cause inconvenience to the relations of the petitioner. It cannot, therefore, be said to be punitive, even if his relations are feeling some difficulty in meeting him at Agra. ( 8 ) IT is true that in the detention order, the place of detention has been mentioned as District Jail, Lucknow but in spite of this he could be removed from that Jail in exercise of the powers under S. 5 of the National Security Act. S. 6 of the Act lays down that no detention order shall be invalid or inoperative merely by reason that the person to be detained thereunder is outside the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the Government or officer making the order, or place of detention of such person is outside the said limits. It cannot, therefore, be said that the detention of the petitioner in Central Jail, Agra on account of the aforesaid transfer is illegal. ( 9 ) AFTER having carefully considered the arguments advanced and the facts placed on record we are of the clear opinion that transfer of the petitioner from the District Jail, Lucknow to Central Jail, Agra is not illegal and his detention in Central Jail in that connection cannot be challenged. The petition has, therefore, no force and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .