B. C. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER Manjit Singh, son of Gurbans Singh, resident of Bhatpora Rajiabad of District Baramulla in the State of Jammu and Kashmir was detained on 6/7-5-86 by the State of Jammu and Kashmir in exercise of power under section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. After his detention, he was lodged in Jammu Jail. By order dated 21. 11. 1986 passed by the Home Secretary of that State, the petitioner has been transferred to Central Jail, Jabalpur, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He challenges this order of transfer on various counts by this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India ( 2 ) SECTION 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act empowers the Government to detain any person on various ground mentioned in that section. The provisions of section 10 regulate the place and conditions of detention. Sub section (b) of section 10 permits removal of the detenu from one place to another in the State by order of the Government. On 7-3-1986, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir issued a proclamation under section 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir whereby, among others, the provisions of sections 74, 75 and 76, subsections (3) and (4) of section 77, and proviso to section 78, relating to legislative procedure, were suspended. The Governor assumed to himself functions of the Government of the State, as mentioned in that proclamation. Not only this, the Governor of the State, in exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of section 91 of the Constitution, also enacted Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety (Amendment) Act, 19156 (Governors Act No. XI of 1986), which came into force immediately on its publication in the Government Gazette dated 29. 5-1986. By that Amendment Act, the words In the State; appearing in section 10 (b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act were deleted. As provided in sub section (4) of section 92 of the Constitution, this amendment is to remain in force until two years have elapsed from the date on which the proclamation ceases to have effect unless sooner repealed or re-enacted by an Act of the Legislature. As provided in sub section (4) of section 92 of the Constitution, this amendment is to remain in force until two years have elapsed from the date on which the proclamation ceases to have effect unless sooner repealed or re-enacted by an Act of the Legislature. It is by force of this amendment causing omission of the words in the State in section 10 (b) of the Act, that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir has transferred the petitioner to this State. ( 3 ) IN the case of Geetinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, where Geetinder Kaur's husband was detained by the State of Punjab under the National Security Act and was transferred to the State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court has laid certain guidelines for a case where such transfer of a detenu in questions. What is said is this: While it is ordinarily desirable that a detenu should be detained in an environment natural to him in point of climate, language, food and other incidents of living, in the actual decision concerning the place of detention these considerations must yield to factors related to, and necessitated by, the need for placing him in preventive detention. While we maintain that the conditions imposed upon a detenu held in preventive detention must not be punitive, they must never the less be such as to secure the effectiveness of his incarceration. 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. ( 4 ) IN the present case, the detenu/petitioner has Dot alleged any mala fides against any particular officer. All that is alleged is that the Home Secretary directed the transfer on the eve of her transfer to some other department. That, however, is not the same thing to say that the action was mala fide. He, however, contends that he is not accustomed to hot weather and is handicapped inasmuch as he suffers from short sightedness due to albinism. He also says that Madhya Pradesh being a little too far away from Kashmir, his parents and other acquaintances are unable to see him. He, however, contends that he is not accustomed to hot weather and is handicapped inasmuch as he suffers from short sightedness due to albinism. He also says that Madhya Pradesh being a little too far away from Kashmir, his parents and other acquaintances are unable to see him. The affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the other hand indicates that the transfer has been directed in order to make the detention of the petitioner effective. It is stated in that affidavit that the petitioner is the Vice-President of the State Union of All India Sikh Students Federation (A. I. S. S. F), which is a terrorist and antinational organization. It is further said that he is a protagonist of Khalisfan and is thus Ii danger to security of Jammu and Kashmir State and integrity of India. It is also stated that in State of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner was being interviewed by a number of his relatives and friends who during the course of interview were interacting with him for the furtherance of activities of A. I. S. S. F. The apprehension expressed is that the petitioner;t stay in the Jammu Jail itself was a. danger as the field of operation of antinational activities of petitioner was Jammu province of the State. Finally, it is asserted that the petitioner's transfer is in the interest of security of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In our opinion, this affidavit is sufficient to indicate that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir bas given a thoughtful consideration to the problem of petitioner's remaining in that State consequent upon his detention. We do not see any arbitrariness in transferring the petitioner to Central Jail, Jabalpur. We have earlier stated that the petitioner has not even alleged any mala fides. ( 5 ) PETITIONER also raised a point that the amendment effected by the Governors Act No. 11 of 1986 in section 10 (b) of the Public Safety Act with not govern his case inasmuch as he was detained before that Amendment Act came into force on 21-11-1986. Contention, therefore, is that in view of section 10 (b) of the Public Safety Act, as it stood in the original Act, the petitioner could not be transferred outside the State. This contention is apparently groundless and must be rejected. Contention, therefore, is that in view of section 10 (b) of the Public Safety Act, as it stood in the original Act, the petitioner could not be transferred outside the State. This contention is apparently groundless and must be rejected. What one has to see is whether on the date when the petitioner was directed to be transferred, the competent authority, namely, the Government, had necessary powers to make the transfer. Apparently in view of Amendment Act (Act No. 11 of 1986), the Government was clothed with necessary power to make the transfer even out of the State when by that amendment the limitation imposed on transfer outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir was removed. The petitioner does not have any vested right of being detained within the territory of Jammu and Kashmir under the Public Safety Act. What is to be seen is the necessary power in the authority who made the transfer. This power, as we have already stated, vested in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the date when the petitioner was directed to be transferred. This contention also, therefore, does not help the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE petitioner requested the Court that certain documents and a copy of the Amendment Act be given to him. The learned Advocate General and Government Advocate appearing for the State of Jammu and Kashmir expressed that needful shall be done as may be permissible. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, petition is dismissed and the rule issued is discharged. No costs. Petition dismissed. .