VIMALA ALIAS SHILPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HABEAS Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of HABEAS Corpus, to direct the respondents to produce the detenue Vimala @ Shilpa, W/o Adhisesh, aged 40 years, who is now detained in Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai-66, in pursuance of the detention order passed by the second respondent on 3.10.2008 in Memo No,341/BDFGISSV/2008, before this Court, call for the records, set aside the order and set the detenue at liberty forthwith.S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.This HABEAS Corpus Petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order of detention in Memo No,341/BDFGISSV/2008, dated 3.10.2008 passed under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). The petitioner has been detained as an Immoral Traffic Offender.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the representation filed by the petitioner on 3.2.2009 was not properly and expeditiously considered and the request for documents, which were directed to be given to the detenu by the first respondent pursuant to the earlier representation dated 25.10.2008, were not furnished to the detenu so far.

(3.) THE question of maintainability of second Habeas Corpus Petition fell for consideration before Courts from time to time. In the case of "P.Sugunan vs. THE Commissioner of Police, Chennai and others" reported in 1999 (1) MWN (Cr.) 10, a Division Bench of this Court held that the doctrine of constructive res-judicata does not bar a subsequent petition on fresh grounds, if not taken in the earlier petition for the same relief and the petitioner can agitate a fresh ground in the second petition, though available to him on the earlier occasion, but not taken.