Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 1126 - HC - Indian LawsChallenge orders of detention passed against two detenus under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 - permissibility of successive habeas corpus petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the parameters to be considered by the Writ Court whilst entertaining such petitions - Held that:- As far as the High Courts are concerned, a division bench of the court cannot ordinarily entertain a second petition for the writ of habeas corpus against a detention order when another division bench has already dismissed a challenged to the same detention order unless (i) fresh and new ground of attack against the legality of the detention or custody, which was not available to the Petitioner earlier, has arisen after the decision on the first petition or (ii) a ground, which was available earlier, could not be taken or urged in the earlier petition for some exceptional reason. As we examine the present petition merits a consideration on the touchstone of the law explained above. The case of the Petitioners is that 25 out of 807 pages of documents supplied to the Petitioners were fully or partly illegible. This ground was certainly available to the Petitioners when the earlier petitions were filed. In fact, in the synopsis to one of the petitions, the ground that illegible documents were given to the detenu was in fact raised. There is absolutely no reason even alleged in the petition – leave aside any exceptional reason – why this ground could not be urged in the earlier petitions. The ground, thus, does not fall within the two exceptions noted above. There is no reason why the ordinary principle of public policy concerning finality to be attached to a decision of the court, should not be applied to the present case. So also the ground of non-availability of Assay Report was a ground very much available to the detenus when the earlier petitions were filed and there is no reason – much less an exceptional reason – why it could not be urged earlier. No reason is either alleged or established. As for the subsequent representations to the detaining authority and the Central Government, there being no new ground or fresh material placed before the authorities in the subsequent representations, which was either not available earlier or being available could not be placed due to some exceptional reason, the detaining authority or the government is not bound to consider the new representation and pass separate order disposing of the same. There is no “changed or new factor” in the present case and “fresh materials” cannot be those that were available earlier and could very well have been brought to the notice of the authorities earlier. No merit in petition.
|