Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. 1. Challenge in this intra Court appeal is the Order dated 11.1.2013 in W.P.No.34209 of 2012 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition with an observation that the respondents shall ensure the safety of the petitioner/appellant's husband while being transferred to other Prison with "strong escort". 2. The brief facts are that the appellant's husband Sridhar was remanded in Crime No.1736 of 2012 of B.2 Vishnu Kanchi Police Station under Sections 147, 448, 342, 385 and 506(ii) of IPC by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kancheepuram on 16.10.2012 and he was admitted in Central Prison, Vellore on 25.10.2012. The appellant's husband Sridhar was subsequently detained under Tamil Nadu Detention Act 14 of 1982 on 25.10.2012 as per the Detention Order passed by the District Collector, Kancheepuram in his Order dated 25.10.2012. After the appellant's husband - Sridhar was admitted in Central Prison, Vellore, apprehending that there is a threat to the life of the said Sridhar from some other persons, who have enmity with the detenu due to his previous association with them, on a proposal submitted by the Additional Director General of Police, Government passed the Order in G.O.No.5001, Home, Prohibition and Excise (11) Department, dated 31.12.2012 ordering to detain the detenu in Central Prison, Madurai. Challenging the said move to transfer the detenu and expressing apprehension that her husband might be killed by the Police en route to other prison, the appellant filed Writ Petition seeking for a mandamus forbearing the respondents from transferring her husband from Central Prison, Vellore to any other Prison. 3. Before the single Judge, the 4th respondent – Additional Director General of Police filed a detailed counter inter alia stating that the decision to transfer the detenu from Central Prison, Vellore to Central Prison, Madurai was taken on administrative grounds and keeping in view of the security of the detenu. In the counter, the 4th respondent also stated that the Prison Authorities will send request to the Armed Reserve Police, Vellore for "strong escort" with police vehicle and the 4th respondent shall also ensure proper escort by the police to Central Prison, Vellore and also that there will be strong escort as and when the appellant's husband Sridhar is produced before the Court. 4. 4. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the apprehension raised by the appellant in the Writ Petition that her husband might be killed by the police en route some other prison is without any basis and that her apprehension is not founded on any material. However, referring to the counter filed by the 4th respondent that the detenu will be transferred only with "strong escort", the learned single Judge observed "it is made clear that the respondents shall ensure safety of the petitioner's husband and he should be transferred to other Prison with strong armed escort." Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr.R.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Mr.Shanmugavelayudham, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for for respondents No.3 to 9 and heard Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. 6. The grievance of the appellant is that the detenu – Sridhar is not given strong escort while being produced in the Court. According to the appellant, for producing the detenu before the Court for one hearing, the detenu was brought in a public transport vehicle and thereafter he was brought to the Court in a share auto and, therefore as undertaken by the respondents "strong escort" was not given to the detenu. 7. Refuting the submission of the appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that when ever the detenu is produced before the Court he was being escorted by means of police vehicle and with sufficient security. The learned Public Prosecutor has also filed the communication No.5003/Tha.ku.3/2013 dated 18.2.2013 sent by the Prison Superintendent, Madurai to the 4th respondent. By perusal of the said communication, it is seen that on the hearing dates - 16.1.2013; 20.1.2013; 29.1.2013; 3.2.2013; 11.2.2013 and 17.2.2013 the detenu was produced before the concerned Courts only in a police vehicle and also with "sufficient escort". The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that subject to the availability of the vehicle and also police personnel the detenu will continue to be taken to the Courts only in a police vehicle and also with sufficient escort. The learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that in case if the vehicle and the escort are not available, the detenu will be produced before the Court on video conferencing thereby ensuring the security of the detenu. The learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that in case if the vehicle and the escort are not available, the detenu will be produced before the Court on video conferencing thereby ensuring the security of the detenu. 8. Recording the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor, the writ appeal is disposed of. The communication dated 18.02.2013 shall form part of the records. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.