Judgment : K. Mohan Ram, J. 1. The above Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of under trial prisoner Mr. D. Maria Johnson @ Johnson, remand prisoner No.5257, who is kept in Central Prison, Coimbatore. 2. The detenu, Johnson, is facing trial for various charges for allegedly committing offences under the NDPS Act in C.C.No.85 of 2005 before the Special Court for EC Act and NDPS Act, Salem, The detenu was arrested on 17.08.2004 & right from the date of his arrest, he is in judicial custody. The detenu is an advocate by profession. The detenu was admitted in Central Prison, Salem, on 17.08.2004 & he was provided with ‘A’ class facilities, pursuant to the order passed by the Court. According to the petitioner, without any valid reason, the detenu was transferred from Central Prison, Salem, to Central Prison, Coimbatore, on 24.12.2009. While transferring from Central Prison, Salem, to Central Prison Coimbatore, the third respondent, according to the petitioner, had not followed the Rules and Regulations of the Prison. The detenu claims the rights of the prisoners. The third respondent treated him as an enemy and tried to make false complaints against him. According to the petitioner, the detenu had sent many representations to the State Government in which he exposed the third respondent and other Prison Officers as to how they did not follow the Prison Rules and sought prisoners’ rights and for that reason alone, he was transferred to Central Prison, Coimbatore, and the special ‘A’ class facilities provided to him was suspended with an intention to further delay the trial. As the detenu has kidney problem, traveling from Coimbatore to Salem to attend the court hearing causes great suffering to him. Since the representation, dated 24.03.2010, sent to the respondent/State Government and the messages sent through telegram on 08.07.2010 have not yielded any result, the above Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed seeking for transfer of the detenu from Central Prison, Coimbatore, to Central Prison, Salem. 3. As per the better affidavit of the petitioner, the third respondent, without getting any explanation from the detenu and without intimating to the trial court, has arbitrarily cancelled the ‘A’ class facilities to the detenu, which according to the petitioner, amounts to double-jeopardy. The third respondent has to jurisdiction to cancel the ‘A’ class facilities granted to the detenu. 3. As per the better affidavit of the petitioner, the third respondent, without getting any explanation from the detenu and without intimating to the trial court, has arbitrarily cancelled the ‘A’ class facilities to the detenu, which according to the petitioner, amounts to double-jeopardy. The third respondent has to jurisdiction to cancel the ‘A’ class facilities granted to the detenu. Only due to the personal grudge and due to vengeance, the ‘A’ class facilities provided to the detenu has been cancelled. Because of the health condition of the detenu and as he is suffering with acute paid in his stomach and hip area, he finds it very difficult to travel such a long distance from Coimbatore to Salem for every hearing. The Advocates, who are appearing on behalf of the detenu before the trial court, have to get instructions from the detenu and as the detenu is at Coimbatore, it causes difficulty for the counsel. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the transfer is illegal and violative of the fundamental rights of the detenu. 4. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter-alia contending as follows:- As the detenu is an advocate, he always wants to dominate other prisoners and to show him as a leader among the prisoners. As an Advocate instead of abiding by the Prison Rights, he always instruct other prisoners to act against the Prison Administration to spoil the smooth administration and he always abuses the prison officers and staff by using unparliamentary words and will threaten Officers saying that he will create allegation against the Prison Officers and will damage the image of the Officers and Prison Department and often he commits Prison Offences and was punished, but even then, he is not prepared to change his attitude inside the prison. On 15.12.2009, the detenu and two others prisoners instigated other prisons not to take lunch and shouted against Prison Officers and Prison Authorities demanding that action should be taken against a Grade I Warder who is doing frisking work in the Interview Room and created an abnormal situation inside the Prison. As their activities are always anti administrative and their further continuance in prison will hinder the smooth administration, a proposal was submitted to the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector of Prisons, Chennai/the second respondent herein, to transfer them to some other prison. As their activities are always anti administrative and their further continuance in prison will hinder the smooth administration, a proposal was submitted to the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector of Prisons, Chennai/the second respondent herein, to transfer them to some other prison. The second respondent, by his order in K.Dis.No.49382/PW/2/09, dated 23.12.2009, has order to transfer the detenu to Central Prison, Coimbatore, and other prisoners to Vellore and Puzhal, Chennai, only on administrative grounds. The detenu was transferred to Central Prison, Coimbatore, after following all the rules and regulations. 5. As far as the health condition of the detenu is concerned, it is stated in the counter filed by the third respondent that the detenu was referred to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, on 30.04.2010 and 01.05.2010 and investigation was done there and an ultrasound scan of the abdomen of the detenu shows Renal Calculai and the Urologist advised medical management and medicines advised by the Urologist has been given to the detenu. The detenu is being regularly produced before the trail court on the hearing dates, except on one or two occasions, when the Police escort was not provided due to some security reasons. As per the provisions laid down in rule 820 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual, Volume II (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Manual, Volume II) only the second respondent has ordered to transfer the detenu and the same was intimated to the concerned court, vide Salem superintendent letter No.15924/R3/09, dated 24.12.2009, and hence there is no violation of the Prison rules. The ‘A’ Class facilities provided to the detenu was curtailed for a period of six months as a punishment for the Prison Offence committed by the Prisoner on 24.12.2009. There is absolutely no intention to delay the trial as he is being regularly produced before the Trial court on the hearing dates. As the detenu has been transferred to the Central Prison, Coimbatore, from Central Prison, Salem, on administration grounds, if he is re-transferred to Central Prison, Salem, he will dislocate the smooth administration of the Central Prison, Salem. There is no proposal to transfer him to some other prison from Central Prison, coimbatore, on false complaint. 6. The fourth respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit. There is no proposal to transfer him to some other prison from Central Prison, coimbatore, on false complaint. 6. The fourth respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, it is contended that the detenu was treated as a Special Class Prisoner, as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.492 of 2005 in C.C.No.85 of 2005, dated 08.11.2005 on the file of the Special (E.C. Act) Court, Salem. On 24.12.2009 he was reported for his mis-behaviour at the time of transferring him to Central Prison, Coimbatore, on administrative grounds and a punishment of changing his class from ‘A’ to ‘B’ for a period of six months was awarded, as per Section 46 of the Prisons Act, 1894, and as per Rule No.302 of the Manual, Volume II, Again on 03.07.2010, he was reported for his mis-behaviour in central Prison, Coimbatore, and he was awarded with a punishment of ‘Regulation of ‘A’ class” into “B’ Class permanently as per Rule No.302 (b)(7) of the Manual, Volume II. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 8. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while reiterating the aforesaid factual aspects, submitted that only because the detenu was exposing misconduct and misdeeds on the part of the prison officials, he was transferred from Central Prison, Salem, to Central Prison, Coimbatore; the contention of the respondent that he was transferred only on administrative grounds is not correct. He submitted that admittedly the detenu is facing trial before the Special Court at Salem and by an order, dated 11.06.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.10108 of 2010, the learned Single Judge of this Court, has directed the Special Court at Salem to expedite the trial, complete the same and pronounce the verdict on or before 22.12.2010, but so far the trial has not been completed; because of the transfer of the detenu from Central Prison, Salem, to Central Prison, Coimbatore, the counsel who are defending the detenu in the criminal case at Salem find it difficult to get instructions from him, as they could not got to Central Prison, Coimbatore; as the detenu is having kidney problem and taking treatment, he finds it very difficult to undertake travel from Coimbatore to Salem to attend the hearings before the Special Court, be retransferred to Central prison, Salem. 9. 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that without any justifiable reason earlier the ‘A’ class facility provided to the detenu was converted to ‘B’ class facility for a period of six months and thereafter for no justifiable reason and without following the Prison Rules, the ‘a’ Class facilities provided to the detenu have been permanently cancelled; even the procedure for cancellation of the A Class facilities as provided for in the Prison Rules have not been followed; no proper opportunity was provided to the detenu and no proper enquiry was conducted before cancelling the A Class facilities. He further submitted that a perusal of the proceedings of the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Coimbatore, shows that not even an explanation of the detenu had been obtained and no witness has been examined to prove the allegations made against the detenu; the fourth respondent had simply observed that when the detenu was produced before him in the presence of the Jailer the detenu is said to have sated that what will be the use of explaining before him. He further submitted that even Loganathan @ Kannupaiyan, against whom the detenu is said to have used abusive words, has not been examined and therefore, the entire proceedings of the fourth respondent is vitiated and the punishment awarded by him is liable to be set-side. 10. Further, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rules does not provide for any guidelines in the exercise of the power of the Jail Authorities for imposing punishment of prison offences. 10. Further, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rules does not provide for any guidelines in the exercise of the power of the Jail Authorities for imposing punishment of prison offences. He, basing reliance on a decision of the apex Court reported in 1980 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 777 (Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration) submitted that the denial of the facilities provided to the detenu, which had been ordered by the Court on the ground of citing prison offences, will be punitive in nature; every such affliction or abridgement is an infraction of liberty or life in its wider sense and cannot be sustained unless, Article 21 is satisfied; there must be a corrective legal procedure, fair and reasonable and effective; such infraction will be arbitrary, under Article 14 if it is dependant on unguided discretion, unreasonable, under Article 19 if it is irremediable and unappealable, and unfair, under Article 21 if it violates natural justice; the string of guidelines in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, reported in (1978) 4 Supreme Court Cases 494 = 1979 SCC (Cri) 155 provides for a hearing at some stages, a review by a superior, and early judicial consideration so that the proceedings may not hop from Ceaser to Ceaser. He further submitted the Prison Rules does not provide for a review by the superior and there is no provision for an appeal and therefore submitted that the cancellation of A class facilities to the detenu permanently should be set-side. He further submitted that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it has not been stated that any proper enquiry was conducted and an opportunity to the detenu was provided to the charges made against him and even the proceedings of the fourth respondent clearly show that no proper enquiry had been conducted and therefore submitted that the impugned order has to be set-aside. 11. Countering the said submissions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. 11. Countering the said submissions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents made the following submission:- As the detenu, as elaborately stated in the counter affidavit of the respondents 3 and 4, had indulged in acts not-conductive to the peaceful atmosphere inside the prison and he had instigated other prisoners to go on hunger strike and had abused the Prison Officials to maintain a peaceful atmosphere in the Central Prison, Salem, he was transferred to Central Prison, Coimbatore, by exercising the powers available under Rule No.820 of the Manual, Volume II. As the continued presence of the detenu in Central Prison, Salem, was found to be not-conducive to the proper administration, he was transferred on administrative grounds and therefore, the same cannot be challenged. The transfer was not effected due to any mala fide reasons, as contended by the petitioner and the transfer was not due to various representations sent by the detenu to the higher authorities sent by the detenu to the higher authorities regarding the alleged misdeeds on the part of the Jail Officials. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the procedure contemplated under the Prison Rules have been strictly followed while canceling the ‘A’ class facilities provided to the detenu; as the detenu had abused the co-prisoner in filthy language and had created a scene inside the prison, proceedings were initiated against him and as he was found to have committed prison offences warranting a major punishment, his facilities from ‘A’ class was reduced to ‘B’ class; the ‘A’ class facility was earlier reduced temporarily for a period of six months with a warning that if he indulges in prison offences subsequently, it will be viewed seriously, but even then, as the detenu had committed prison offences, the cancellation was ordered. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, for interfering with the punishment awarded to the detenu. 13. We have heard, considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 14. It is pertinent to point out that it is not denied by the petitioner that the detenu was sending petitions against the Jail Officials, while he was kept in Central Prison, Salem. 13. We have heard, considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 14. It is pertinent to point out that it is not denied by the petitioner that the detenu was sending petitions against the Jail Officials, while he was kept in Central Prison, Salem. It is the case of the respondents that the detenu never used to abide by the Prison Rules and he always instigated other prisoners to act against the prison Administration. According to the learned Additional Public prosecutor, as the detenu happens to be an Advocate, he always used to abuse the Prison Officers using un-parliamentary words and instigated other prisoners against Prison Administration. On 15.12.2009, he had instigated other prisoners not to take lunch and shouted against the Prison Officers and Prison Authorities demanding that action should be taken against a Grade I Warder who is doing frisking work in the Interview Room and created an abnormal situation inside the Prison. The said averments in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent has not been rebutted by filing any reply affidavit by the petitioner, There is no material whatsoever to show that only because of the detenu sending representations to the higher authorities against the Jail officials, he was transferred from Central Prison, Salem to Central Prison, Coimbatore. If a prisoner, by his conduct, creates an atmosphere not-conducive to proper prison management, then his continued presence inside the same prison cannot be justified. 15. Rule No.820 of the Manual, Volume II, provides that on administrative grounds, the Inspector General is authorized to transfer under trial or remand prisoners from one prison to another within the State, provided that if a prisoner is transferred to a place outside the jurisdiction of the court concerned, prompt intimation shall be sent to the court and the prisoner shall be produced before the Court on the due date. In this cases the order transferring the detenu from Central Prison, Salem, to Central Prison, Coimbatore, passed by the second respondent, under Rule No. 820 of the Manual, Volume II, and the same has also been intimated to the concerned court. There is no necessity to get permission of the jurisdictional court before transferring a remand prisoner to another prison. In this cases the order transferring the detenu from Central Prison, Salem, to Central Prison, Coimbatore, passed by the second respondent, under Rule No. 820 of the Manual, Volume II, and the same has also been intimated to the concerned court. There is no necessity to get permission of the jurisdictional court before transferring a remand prisoner to another prison. It is sufficient if the transfer is intimated to that Court and therefore, there is no infraction of the rule by the second respondent. 16. The act of the detenu in instigating other prisoners to go on hunger strike seeking action against the Jail Official would have definitely create problems to the Jail authorities in the administration of the prison. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the second respondent in transferring the detenu from Central Prison, Salem to Central Prison, Coimbatore and therefore, the main prayer in the Habeas Corpus Petition cannot be granted and accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed. However, we are of the considered view that the cancellation of ‘A’ class facilities provided to the detenu and de-grading the facilities to ‘B’ class cannot be sustained for the following reasons. 17. Chapter 18 of the Tamil Nadu Prison rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) deals with offences and punishments. Rule No.297 of the Rules Enumerates acts declared to be prison offence under Section 45 of the Prisons Acts, 1894. As per Rule 297(2) of the Rules quarrelling with other prisoners, prison officials, visitors and others, is a prison offence. As per rule 297 (10) of the rules doing any act or using any language calculated to would or offend the feelings and prejudices of fellow prisoner is enumerated as a prison offence. Rule 302 of the rules classifies the punishments. Rule 302(a)(5) of the Rules classifies temporary reduction from a higher to lower class or grade as a minor punishment. Rule 302 (b) (7) of the Rules classifies permanent reduction from a higher to lower class or grade as major punishment. Rule 303 of the Rules prescribes the procedure for awarding punishments, which reads as follows”- “303. Awarding Punishments. - (1) The Superintendent shall examines any person touching any prison offence and determine thereupon whether to award a minor or major punishment and his determination shall be noted down while awarding punishment. Rule 303 of the Rules prescribes the procedure for awarding punishments, which reads as follows”- “303. Awarding Punishments. - (1) The Superintendent shall examines any person touching any prison offence and determine thereupon whether to award a minor or major punishment and his determination shall be noted down while awarding punishment. (2) No Prisoner shall be punished unless he has been informed of the offence alleged against him and given a proper opportunity of presenting his version of the case. The competent authority shall conduct an inquiry into the case. No prisoner shall be punished except in accordance with the terms of rules. (3) No prisoner shall be punished twice for the same offence provided that any security measure such as separate confinement, hand cuffing, cellular confinement and the like taken for the safe custody of a refractory and dangerous prisoner of for preventing him from committing mischief or the stoppage of privileges which are otherwise admissible to well behaved prisoners only, shall not be construed as prison punishment for this purpose.” Rule 304 of the Rules provides for an enquiry before punishment and the relevant rules are extracted below: “304. Enquiry before punishment. - (1) Prisoners are liable to be punished for prison offences as per rules irrespective of the class in which they are placed - (2) No prisoner shall be punished for any statement or complaint made to a visitor. (3) Whenever prisoners are produced before the Superintendent for punishment, the Superintendent shall conduct a thorough enquiry in a fair manner. It shall not become a mechanical process for the mere awarding of punishments. Enquiry shall be conducted as promptly as possible. During enquiry, the accused shall be present. Witness shall be brought in one at a time.” 18. The allegations leveled against the detenu fall within the ambit of Rule 297 (1) (2) and (10) of the Rules. It has to be seen as to whether the allegations made against the detenu have been proved and whether the provisions contained in Rules 303 and 304 of the Rules have been strictly complied with. 19. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure contemplated under Rules 303 and 304 of the Rules have not been followed. 20. It has to be seen as to whether the allegations made against the detenu have been proved and whether the provisions contained in Rules 303 and 304 of the Rules have been strictly complied with. 19. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure contemplated under Rules 303 and 304 of the Rules have not been followed. 20. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 303 of the Rules provides that the Superintendent shall examine any person touching any prison offence and determine thereupon whether to award a minor or major punishment and his determination shall be noted down while awarding punishment. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 303 of the rules provides that no prisoner shall be punished unless he has been informed of the offence in alleged against him and given a proper opportunity of presenting his version of the case. It is also provides that the competent authority has to conduct an enquiry into the case and it further provides that no prisoner shall be punished except in accordance with the terms of the rules. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 304 of the Rules provides that whenever a prisoner is produced before the Superintendent for punishment, the Superintendent shall conduct a thorough enquiry in a fair manner and it shall not became a mechanical process for mere awarding of punishments, enquiry shall be conducted as promptly as possible and during enquiry, the accused shall be present and witnesses shall be brought in one at a time. Thus the aforesaid rules provide the unless the prisoner has been informed of the offence alleged against him and a proper opportunity of presenting his version of the case is provided and a proper enquiry is conducted, no prisoner shall be punished. The enquiry should be conducted in a fair manner and witnesses shall be examined one after another in the presence of the prisoners. 21. It has to be seen as to whether the aforesaid rules and procedures have been followed in this case. 22. The enquiry should be conducted in a fair manner and witnesses shall be examined one after another in the presence of the prisoners. 21. It has to be seen as to whether the aforesaid rules and procedures have been followed in this case. 22. It has not been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that a proper enquiry, as contemplated in the Rules, was conducted, the details of the allegations made against the detenu was either read over to him or the allegations contained in writing was handed over to him and an opportunity was given to him to explain the same and it has not been started that any witness was examined in the presence of the detenu and it has not also been mentioned that the third respondent had examined the detenu before awarding the punishment. 23. The proceedings, of the fourth respondent relating to the complaint, dated 03.07.2010, is annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent. A perusal of the same shows that the gist of the complaint made by the Jailer is extracted. The complaint against the detenue is that on the evening of 03.07.2010, When Loganathan @ Kannupaiyan, Convict No.3066, was serving tea to the Constables posted in the III Block, the detenu who was detained in that block, is alleged to have used un-parliamentary words against the said convict and told him that as he is a ‘A’ class prisoner, tea should be brought to him. He is alleged to have further uttered filthy words against the Superintendent, Jailer and Deputy Jailer and alleged to have said that he will show as to who he is and threatened that the will cause injury to the Jail Officials and created a scene. It is further seen that the detenu was produced before the third respondent in the presence of the Jailer, but it does not reflect that the allegations or the complaint made against the detenu by the Jailer had been read over to him or explained to him and his explanation was called for, but it has been observed as if the detenu has stated that what will happen if he is to say anything before him. Acting on that reply, the third respondent has concluded that proceedings by holding that the allegations made against the detenu has been proved and the acts of the detenu falls within Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 297 of the rules attracting punishment as per rule 302(b)(7) of the Rules and has accordingly reduced the ‘A’ class facilities provided to the detenu to ‘B’ class facilities. 24. The aforesaid proceedings of the third respondent does not show that a proper opportunity had been afforded to the detenu to explain his case. When the allegations made against the detenu is that the convict, Loganathan @ Kannupaiyan, was abused in filthy words by the detenu, he should have been examined as a witness, but he had not been examined as a witness. It is the further allegation that the detenu had used abusive words against the Superintendent, Jailer and Deputy Jailer, other prisoners kept in the nearly cells in the same block at least could have been examined, but no one has been examined and therefore, the finding recorded by the third respondent is not supported by any evidence and therefore the same cannot be upheld. 25. When the Rules provide that a proper opportunity should be provided to the prisoner and a fair enquiry should be conducted, the third respondent has not provided a fair opportunity to the detenu and no fair enquiry has been conducted. Further, when Rule 304 (3) provides that the enquiry shall not become a mechanical process for the mere awarding of punishments, what has been done by the third respondent is in the guise of conducting an enquiry he has followed a mechanicals process for the mere awarding of punishments. When ‘A’ class facilities had been provided to the detenu by an order of the trial court, before canceling the same, the third respondent ought to have strictly followed the procedure contemplated under Rules 303 and 304 of the rules, but in our considered view, the said procedure contemplated in the said rules have not been strictly followed and therefore, the reduction of ‘A’ class faculties to ‘B’ class facilities to the detenu cannot be sustained and therefore, the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 03.07.2010, reducing ‘A’ class facilities to ‘B’ class facilities permanently to the detenu is set-aside. The detenu shall be provided with ‘a’ class facilities as ordered by the Trial court, in its order, in Crl.M.P.No.492 of 2005 in C.C.No.85 of 2005, dated 08.11.2005 on the file of the Special (E.C. Act) Court, Salem. 26. With the aforesaid directions, the above Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed. However, there will be nor order as costs.