B. K. MEHTA, B. S. KAPADIA, J.

( 1 ) WHETHER successive application for a writ of Habeas Corpus on the same and\or fresh grounds can be filed therefore the High Court in moot question which arises in this criminal application. In order to appreciate the contentions which have been urged on behalf of the petitioner-detenu it is necessary to briefly set out a few facts which are as under:

( 2 ) THE petitioner has been detained by the order of the State Government dated 18/03/1983 in exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA ). The petitioner was supplied with the grounds on which the detention order has been made on the same lay in Gujarati as well as in English. It appears that the wife of the petitioner Smt. Manjulaben Ratilal had moved this Court for appropriate writ order and/or direction and particularly a writ of or a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus by her Special Criminal Application No. 547 of 1983 impugning the detention order. The said Special Criminal Application came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: A. M. Ahmadi and M. B. Shah JJ) which by its judgment and order of 21/07/1983 rejected the said special criminal application after negativing all the contentions urged therein and uphold ing the detention order. By the present petition however the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the detention order on the grounds which he claims to be fresh grounds. It is not necessary to set out all the grounds which have been averred in the present petition. Suffice it to mention three grounds only which have been pressed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner as fresh grounds on which the jurisdiction of this Court is invoked for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus. Shortly stated the there grounds which the learned Counsel for the petitioner claims to be fresh grounds are: (1) Denial by the Advisory Board of the assistance of a lawyer to the detenu at the time of hearing on his representation before the Board. (2) Non supply of the material document namely log book maintained on boat of the mechanically propelled vessel by name Krishnaprased UMR 1477 which is a fishing trawler. (3) Refusal to summon witnesses as prayed for by the detenu and permitting their cross-examination. THERE are the there grounds pressed in service in support of the present petition.

( 3 ) THE petition has been resisted on behalf of the respondents by raising a preliminary objection that the second petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus is not competent before the High Court since the earlier petition dismissed by the Division Bench was an order made on behalf of this Court and therefore according to the correct practice and legal principles the second petition assuming to be on the fresh grounds even is not competent. In any case assuming without admitting that such a second petition is competent the so called grounds are merely additional facets of the. same challenge to the legality of the detention and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to press them in service as they are the fresh grounds in support of the present petition.

( 4 ) TWO questions therefore arise for our consideration in this petition. Firstly whether successive petitions for a writ of Habeas Corpus are competent before the High Court even on the fresh grounds and secondly whether the grounds which have been pressed on behalf of the petition. in support of the present petition can be said to be fresh grounds at all or are merely different facets of the same argument namely denial of adequate opportunity of making adequate representation as enshrined in the Constitution which ground was squarely pressed on behalf of the petitioner by his wife in the earlier petition. Re: Quest No. 1

( 5 ) WE will deal with both these questions in the same order in which we have set out above. In Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document