Sivagami vs The Secretary to the Government, Food, Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department, The District Collector and District Magistrate and The Secretary to the Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of India

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated 26.12.2005, detaining her husband by name

Durai @ Duraisamy under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for R-1 and R-2 and the learned Additional Central Government

Standing Counsel for R-3.

It is not in dispute that the very same petitioner, by filing HCP No. 165 of 2006, challenged the same impugned proceedings dated 26.12.2005.

It is also not in dispute that, by order dated 21.03.2006, after considering the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well

as the respondents, this Court, holding that there is no merit in the said contentions, dismissed HCP No. 165 of 2006. After dismissal of the said

petition, now, the very same petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition, praying for quashing of the very same detention order.

Mr.V. Parthiban, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, mainly contended that the representation, dated 3.4.2006, sent on behalf of the

detenu to the Central Government, has not been considered and that no intimation was sent to the petitioner regarding the fate of the said

representation. Though learned Counsel appearing for the respondents raised an objection regarding maintainability of the above petition in view of

the dismissal of the earlier petition, ie., HCP No. 165 of 2006, order dated 21.3.2006, we are inclined to consider the argument of the learned

Counsel for the petitioner. It is the specific stand of the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for R-3, that no such

representation, dated 03.04.2006, was received by the third respondent. In view of the categorical statement made by the Counsel for R-3, we

have no other option except to accept the same.

It is our duty to mention that while disposing of the earlier petition, ie., HCP No. 165 of 2006, this Court considered all the rival contentions and

after perusing the relevant materials, dismissed the said petition. In view of the information furnished by the third respondent, even the only

contention raised in this petition is liable to be rejected. Consequently, Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.