2006 (9) TMI 600 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a second Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus.
2. Legality of the deferred detention after prorogation of the House.

Summary:

Maintainability of a Second Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus:
The petitioner filed a second Writ Petition u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, challenging the detention order dated 11th/12th April 2006. The petitioner argued that the second petition was based on new grounds not raised in the earlier petition. The court examined whether a second petition for Habeas Corpus is maintainable when the first petition was dismissed.

The court referred to several precedents, including Lallubhai Jogibhai v. Union of India, which stated that the doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata does not apply to illegal detention cases and does not bar a subsequent petition for Habeas Corpus on fresh grounds. However, the court noted that the principle of finality of decisions should be upheld to avoid vexing individuals with the same litigation repeatedly.

The court also cited the case of Moideen Koya (2004) 8 SCC 106, which reaffirmed that a subsequent petition under Article 32 of the Constitution would be maintainable only if there is a change in circumstances or a new ground that was not available at the time of the earlier decision.

The court concluded that the present petition did not raise any new grounds that were unavailable during the first petition. The argument that the cause of action arose only on 3rd July 2006 was rejected, as the detention order clearly specified the quantum and manner of punishment, making the ground available during the earlier petition.

Legality of Deferred Detention:
The petitioner contended that the detention after the prorogation of the House on 21.4.2006 was illegal. The court noted that the order of detention specified a 90-day imprisonment, with the remaining portion of detention to be executed in subsequent sessions of the House. The court found that this ground was available during the first petition and should have been raised then.

The court upheld the preliminary objection that the second petition was not maintainable and discharged the Rule. The court did not delve into the legality of the deferred detention, as it found the second Writ Petition itself to be non-maintainable.

Conclusion:
The court ruled that the second Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus was not maintainable as it did not raise any new grounds that were unavailable during the first petition. The principle of finality of decisions was upheld, and the Rule was discharged.