Geetha vs State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—In this petition, the petitioner challenges the detention order dated 21.09.2005, in and by which the second respondent

detaining her husband, viz., Anand Raj @ Anand @ Anandhan, as Immoral Traffic Offender u/s 2(G) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous

activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act,

1982 (in short ""Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"").

It is not in dispute that this is the second Habeas corpus petition, challenging the very same detention order dated 21.09.2005. In the earlier

petition, viz., HCP.No.1117 of 2005, the petitioner was represented by another counsel. A perusal of the order dated 11.02.2006 made in

HCP.No.1117 of 2005 shows that the counsel who appeared before us raised all the contentions, after considering the same, and after finding that

the detaining authority had in his possession the required materials to show that the detenu is habitually committing crimes and acting in the manner

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order came to the conclusion that the detenu is an immoral traffic offender and after finding that there is no

violation or deviation of any of the safeguards, this Court dismissed the said petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition would submit that though the detention order was passed by the detaining authority on

21.09.2005 and approved by the Government on 02.10.2005, the same was served on the detenu only on 06.10.2005, which, according to him,

is beyond the prescribed period and vitiates the detention order.

First of all, we are not accepting the said contention. It is not the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said point was not

available to the petitioner when the earlier Habeas corpus petition was filed. In this regard, it is useful to refer two Division Bench decisions of this

Court rendered in HCP. No. 94 of 2004 dated 28.01.2004 (Kasturi v. State of Tamil Nadu) and HCP. No. 142 of 2004 dated 06.02.2004 (S.

Sarasa v. State of Tamil Nadu). In the above said decisions, the Division Bench observed that when a point raised in the second Habeas corpus

petition was very well available at the time of hearing of the first Habeas corpus petition, the same cannot be agitated again and again in subsequent

petitions. In view of the fact that the present ground was very well available to the petitioner at the time of hearing of the earlier Habeas corpus

petition, we are of the view that the principle laid down in both the decisions is applicable to the case on hand. Further, it is fairly stated by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that even this point has not been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the present petition.

For the above said reasons, we dismiss this petition.