9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether successive petitions can lie to the High Court under Article 226 challenging an order of preventive detention after the first petition was dismissed on merits. 2. Whether there was a delay by the Central Government in considering the representations dated 6th December and 15th December 1995. 3. Whether the representations were not considered by the detaining authority and whether there was non-communication of the decision by the detaining authority. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Successive Petitions under Article 226 The court examined whether a second petition under Article 226 could be entertained after the first petition was dismissed on merits and no new grounds or evidence had arisen. The court referred to several precedents, including the Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court, and concluded that successive petitions are not maintainable unless there are fresh grounds or exceptional circumstances that justify the omission of the grounds in the earlier petition. The court emphasized that the principle of finality should apply to prevent repeated litigation on the same grounds. Issue 2: Delay by the Central Government The petitioner alleged that there was a delay by the Central Government in considering the representations dated 6th December and 15th December 1995, which were rejected on 25th January 1996. However, this contention was not pressed during the arguments, and the court noted that the delay was satisfactorily explained by the affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary. Therefore, this aspect of the contention was given up by the petitioner. Issue 3: Non-consideration and Non-communication by the Detaining Authority The petitioner argued that the representations dated 6th December and 15th December 1995 were not considered by the detaining authority and that there was no communication of the decision by the detaining authority. The court noted that this ground was available to the petitioner at the time of the first petition but was not raised. The court held that in the absence of any fresh evidence or exceptional circumstances, the second petition on this ground was not maintainable. The court emphasized that the detenu was vigilant and had taken several steps during the first petition, indicating that the ground could have been raised earlier. Conclusion: The court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and held that the second petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The court also rejected the prayer for a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) read with Article 134-A of the Constitution for appeal to the Supreme Court, stating that the issue was decided based on settled legal principles and did not warrant further appeal.
|
