MURUGA THEVAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEAD the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE order of preventive detention has been challenged by the father of the detenue. THE detenue, a lady has been detained on the allegation that she is a drug offender under Act, 14 of 1982. A habeas corpus petition has been filed on behalf of the detenue on earlier occasion which has been dismissed on merit 18.1.2006. From the judgment in the said case, it is apparent that only two questions were raised before the High Court. In the present habeas corpus petition, a new point has been raised by the petitioner to the effect that eventhough in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has relied upon the order of remand and the subsequent extension of remand, Tamil version of such orders which are in English had not been furnished to the detenue. It is asserted that the detenue knows only Tamil and she does not know English.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the aforesaid Supreme Court decision would not be applicable as the documents in question were merely referred to in the order of detention and it cannot be said that those were relied upon documents. THE learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that since the earlier habeas corpus petition has been dismissed on merit, a subsequent habeas corpus petition is not maintainable.