Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. One Gopal alias Arunthavachelvan, it is said, was found guilty under Sec. 302, Indian Penal Code, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Madras by judgment dated 24. 1987. The conviction and sentence, it is said, had been subsequently confirmed in appeal by this court. Ever since his conviction and sentence, he had been undergoing his period of imprisonment as a lifer at Central Prison, Vellore. His parents are stated to be in Sri Lanka. One Dhanalakshmi (petitioner) stated to be his sister is said to be residing at Villupuram, V.R.P. District along with her husband. 2. Since his parents are at Sri Lanka, it is very difficult for them to make frequent visits to the petitioner and they, it is said, had visited for three times only in the total period of his confinement ever since his detention in prison. The petitioner having been placed in an impecunious situation, is also stated to be finding it difficult to make frequent visits to Central Prison, Vellore, to see her brother, the said lifer. It appears, she made a representation to the Inspector General of Prisons, Madras (second respondent), praying for his transfer to Cuddalore Central Prison for a period of 3 months commencing from 16. 1994. A similar petition also appeared to have been sent to the second respondent by the said lifer. Purely on a humanitarian ground, the said lifer had been transferred to Cuddalore Central Prison for a temporary period of 3 months as aforesaid. When the said period of 3 months was to be expire, the said lifer was sought to be transferred again to Central Prison, Vellore. 3. In order to thwart such a move, the petitioner, at this juncture, resorted to the present action under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents to keep the petitioner’s brother Gopal alias Arunthavachelvan at Cuddalore Central Prison during the period of his sentence contending that prisoners placed in similar situation as that of her brother had been accommodated at Cuddalore Central Prison and any differential treatment meted out to him, does not appear to be fair and reasonable, thereby impliedly stating that in doing so, there is violation or refraction of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. She also filed H.C.M.P. No. 126 of 1994 praying for stay of further proceedings in respect of transfer of petitioner’s brother namely Gopal alias Arunthavachelvan from Cuddalore Central Prison to Vellore Central Prison pending disposal of the habeas corpus petition. In the said H.C.M.P., no interim order had ever been passed. But nonetheless, as stated by Additional Public Prosecutor during the course of argument across the Bar, he is still retained at Cuddalore Central Prison because of the pendency of the habeas corpus petition before this court and awaiting its outcome. 4. Arguments of Mr.T. Kalaimani, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Raghupathy learned Additional Public Prosecutor, were heard. In Gulam Sarwar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1335, their Lordships of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court had the occasion to consider the scope of a writ of habeas corpus and in such process of consideration, extracted the relevant portion from Corpus Juries Secundum, Vol.39 at Page 24, thus, "The writ of habeas corpus is a writ directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designed time and place, with the day and cause of his caption and detention to do so, submit to and receive whatsoever the court or Judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf Blacestone in his commentaries said of this writ thus: It is a writ antecedent to statute, and throwing its roof deep into the genus of our common law.... It is perhaps the most important writ known to the constitutional law of England, affording as it does a swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint or confinement. It is of immemorial antiquity, an instance of its use occurring in the thirty-third year of Edward I. This writ has been described by John Marshal, C.J. as a great constitutional privilege. An eminent Judge observed, there is no higher duty than to maintain it unimpaired. It was described as a magna carta of British liberty. Heavy penalties are imposed on a Judge who wrongfully refuses to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The history of the writ is the history of the conflict between power and liberty. The writ provides a prompt and effective remedy against illegal restraints. It is inextricably inter-twined with the fundamental right of personal liberty. Heavy penalties are imposed on a Judge who wrongfully refuses to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The history of the writ is the history of the conflict between power and liberty. The writ provides a prompt and effective remedy against illegal restraints. It is inextricably inter-twined with the fundamental right of personal liberty. Habeas corpus, literally means ‘have his body’. By this writ the court can direct to have the body of the person detained to be brought before it in order to ascertain whether the detention is legal or illegal. Such is the predominant position of the writ in the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence." The scope of writ of habeas corpus is also dealt with in Administrative Law by H.W.R. Wade (Administrative Law by H.W.R.Wade, Sixth Edition) and the relevant passages occur at pages 620 and 621 as reflected below: "Habeas corpus cannot be used as a means of appeal, but only of review. In other words, the court is concerned with the question whether the order of detention is made within jurisdiction or ought to be quashed, but not with the question whether it is correct on its merits. This is the familiar distinction between appeal and review which runs right through administrative law. Accordingly habeas corpus will be granted if it can be shown that the order of detention is ultra vires on any of the normal grounds such as a wrong finding of jurisdictional fact: or if the order is vitiated by error on the fact of the record: or if (it seems) it is supported by no evidence. The House of Lords has pointed out the close similarity between the grounds for habeas corpus and the grounds for judicial review generally....... where there has been excessive delay in bringing a prisoner up for trial, or in executing and order for his deportation, he can use habeas corpus so as to bring himself before the court and the court will give suitable directions by declaration or otherwise. But habeas corpus will not avail to challenge the conditions of detention, provided that the detention itself is lawful. A prisoner retains all his personal rights and remedies, except in so far as the law deprives him of them. But habeas corpus will not avail to challenge the conditions of detention, provided that the detention itself is lawful. A prisoner retains all his personal rights and remedies, except in so far as the law deprives him of them. In case of maltreatment, he can use ordinary or prerogative remedies, including certiorari and mandamus, if he claims the right to be moved to another prison, or to be held under better conditions, he can apply for judicial review, but normally the court will not interfere with the management of a prison. Non-observance of the prison rules, however, will not normally entitle him to sue." In an unreported decision of this court in Sathyamoorthi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, H.C.P.No. 1653 of 1993, learned Judges, constituting the Division Bench observed, "In our considered opinion, we are of the view that for the purpose of transfer of a prisoner from one prison to another the petitioner cannot move this court by way of writ of habeas corpus." While coming to such a conclusion, learned Judges happened to consider the judgments of the Supreme Court namely first Sunil Batra’s case, (1979)1 S.C.R. 392 : 1978 Crl.L.J. 1741, second Sunil Batra’s case, (1980)2 S. C.R. 557: 1980 Crl.L.J. 1099 and the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and others, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 746. 5. In the backdrop of the principles evolved as above relatable to the scope of a writ of habeas corpus, let us now delve deep into the arena of discussion to give legal fitment to the facts of the case on hand in the light of the relevant Prison Rules Relatable to the confinement of prisoners in various prisons in Tamil Nadu. 6. Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 deals with confinement of prisoners. Below Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, a table is provided containing guidelines for the detention of the prisoners in various prisons depending upon the name of the district in which the committing courts are situated and the particulars of sentence, say, for instance, if a prisoner happens to be convicted and sentenced by a court situate at Madras, which is falling within Madras District then such a convict prisoner has to be detained at Central Prison, Madras. Similarly prisoners convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and consequently committed to prison for serving the period of sentence by courts located in various districts are to undergo the period of sentence in the prisons named in tabular column No. 1 under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, all male habitual prisoners committed by the courts in the districts of Thanjavur, Madurai, Ramanathapuram, Tirunelveli and South Arcot, were detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore. This was subsequently amended by G.O.Ms.No. 24, Home (Prisons V) Department, dated 1. 1986. The amendment effected is reflected as below: "In the said Rules, in Rule 5 in Sub-rule (2), in the Table-1(1) for the entries in column .(2) against “Central Prison, Cuddalore” in column (1) the following entries should be substituted namely. .(1) any male prisoner who commits any prison offence and does not correct himself after the punishment is awarded to him for such offence. .(ii) any male prisoner who spreads indiscipline in the prison: and (iii any male prisoner who instigates any other prisoner to commit a prison offence. Explanation: The transfer of such prisoners to Central Prison, Cuddalore shall be effected on the orders of the Inspector General of Prisons". .(ii) for the entries in column (2) against ‘Central Prison, Salem’ in column (1) the following entries shall be substituted namely: All male habitual prisoners committed by the courts in the State of Tamil Nadu.” It is thus clear from the aforesaid amendment that in the Central Prison, Cuddalore, that male prisoner who commits any prison offence or spreading indiscipline in the prison or instigating any prisoner to commit a prison offence alone had been detained. 7. In the year 1979, the Inspector General of Prisons, Madras, had reported to the Government that after the introduction of amended Prohibition Act the daily average receipt of remand and under-trial prisoners in the Central Prison, Madras, had considerably increased and the lock-up of remand and under trial prisoners is more than the authorised accommodation. The Inspector General of Prisons, Madras, has, therefore, proposed to Government that only under trials and remand prisoners sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding one month committed by all courts in Madras City and Chingleput District may be confined in the Central Jail, Madras and that the prisoners sentenced to imprisonment exceeding one month may be confined in the Central Prison, Vellore, where the lock-up is less. 8. 8. The Government have accepted the above suggestion of the Inspector General of Prisons, Madras, and requested the High Court to issue suitable instructions to all courts in Madras City and Chingleput district in this regard in Government’s letter No. 211524/Pr. II/78-1, dated 1. 1979; on receipt of such a letter from the Government, the Registrar of the High Court in R.O.C. No. 140/79/E-3, dated 15. 1979, issued an official memorandum directing that the principal and Sessions Judge, Madras, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras the Sessions Judge, Chingleput and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chingleput, to issue suitable instructions to their subordinate courts to commit the under-trials, remand prisoners and prisoners except the habitual prisoners sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding one month, to Central Prison, Madras and to commit all other prisoners to the Central Prison, Vellore, for confinement. 9. In the instant case, as adverted to earlier, the petitioner’s brother Gopal alias Aruntnavachelvan had been committed and sentenced to imprisonment by the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Madras and committed to Central Prison Vellore and undergoing the period of sentence of life imprisonment as imposed upon him. As such there is nothing wrong in his being committed to Central Prison, Vellore. No doubt true it is, the said convict person had been transferred to Central Prison, Cuddalore, for a period of 3 months commencing from 16. 1994 purely on humanitarian grounds on the request emerging from the said life convict as well as his sister, the petitioner. It is only at the juncture of expiry of the period of said 3 months, the petitioner, in order to thwart such a move, resorted to the present action. In such a state of affairs, it goes without saying the present action is nothing but one for the transfer of the said life convict from Central Prison, Vellore, to Central Prison, Cuddalore, for undergoing the rest of the period of his sentence. Such a transfer, on the basis of the Division Bench decision of this Court, relying upon the principles evolved by the Apex Court, is not permissible in law. 10. Such a transfer, on the basis of the Division Bench decision of this Court, relying upon the principles evolved by the Apex Court, is not permissible in law. 10. The petitioner would, however, contend that other prisoners placed in similar situation like her brother, convict prisoner, had the benefit of transfer to Central Prison, Cuddalore, and in such a situation, the transfer asked for is not granted, it is nothing but hostile discrimination and arbitrary exercise of power violating or offending the sanguine provisions adumbrated under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. To such a submission, we are unable to affix our seal of approval. Relevant at this juncture, to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case of G.V. Ramanaiah v. Superintendent of Central Jail, 1974 Crl.L.J. 150. In that case, the benevolent provisions of a remand G.O. had been wrongly applied to four persons and consequently they had the benefit of it. A similar benefit was asked for to a person placed in similar situation. In such a context, the argument put forward by the learned counsel and the way the argument had been met with by the Supreme Court, may be penned down here to understand the principle evolved therein, as reflected in paragraph 17 which reads thus, “Mr.D.K. Rao next contends in a somewhat half-hearted manner that even if the State Government had extended the benefit of its G.O. owing to a mistake to four other persons, similarly placed it was not fair to deny the same treatment to the petitioner. This contention must be repelled for the obvious reason that two wrongs never make a right”. 11. One more vociferous argument emerged from learned counsel for the petitioner revolving on the question of detention of the said life convict in a prison near to the place where his kith and kin reside so as to enable them to make a visit to the prisoner and be of solace to him. No doubt true it is, the Apex Court of this Court, on occasions, more than one, stressed the importance of the detention of prisoners in prisons located near the place where his kith and kin reside. No doubt true it is, the Apex Court of this Court, on occasions, more than one, stressed the importance of the detention of prisoners in prisons located near the place where his kith and kin reside. In the case on hand the only nearest prison the said life convict can be detained is the Central Prison, Vellore, when especially the Central Prison, Cuddalore, is purely intended for the purpose of detaining male prisoners committing prison offence or spreading indiscipline in prison or instigating another prisoner to commit a prison offence. For the reasons above, this habeas corpus petition observes dismissal and consequently the same is dismissed. Habeas corpus miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.