The permissibility of entertaining successive Habeas Corpus Petitions and the requirement for new grounds in successive petitions.

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.

1. The wife of the detenu Thiru.Mari is the petitioner herein and this Habeas Corpus Petition, assailing the order of detention dated 16.7.2009 passed by the second respondent in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V.No.42/2009, is the second one filed by the petitioner.

2. In order to arrive at subjective satisfaction that the detenu Thiru.Mari was to be termed a "Sand Offender" as contemplated under Section 2(gg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982, the Detaining Authority viz., the second respondent, noticed as many as four adverse cases, in (1) Crime No.134/2008, on the file of K.K.Chatram Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 379, 430 IPC and Section 21(1)(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957; (2) Crime No.121/2009, on the file of K.K.Chatram Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 353, 506(ii), 379, 430 IPC r/w Section 21(1)(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 ; (3) Crime No.229/2009, on the file of K.K.Chatram Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 353, 506(ii), 379, 430 IPC r/w Section 21(1)(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and (4) Crime No.253/2009, on the file of K.K.Chatram Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 353, 506(ii), 379, 430 IPC r/w Section 21(1)(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and also the ground case registered in Crime No.255/2009, on the file of K.K.Chatram Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 379, 430 IPC and Section 4(1), 21(1)(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 r/w 294(b) and 307 IPC. The said order of detention is now assailed by the wife of the petitioner seeking an Order quashing the detention order and directing his release in this second Habeas Corpus Petition.

3. The earlier Habeas Corpus Petition viz., H.C.P.No.1422 of 2009 was considered by this Court and dismissed by an elaborate Order on 6.11.2009. Subsequent to the dismissal of the said earlier Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner seems to have sent a representation to the first respondent seeking revocation of the order of detention, which is under challenge in this second Habeas Corpus Petition and the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed on the ground that the said representation has not been considered and disposed of expeditiously. In addition to the said ground, the petitioner has also raised another ground, namely, the discrepancies found in the documents supplied by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority and considered by the Detaining Authority, were not noticed by the Detaining Authority while arriving at a conclusion that it was necessary to clamp the order of detention.

4. We have heard the submissions of Mr.S.Swamidoss Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and that of Mr.M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

5. As it is the second petition, the sustainability of the same, in the light of the fact that the earlier petition was dismissed on merits, arises as an important question. Of course it is conceded that the principle of constructive res judicata shall not be applicable to Habeas Corpus Petition seeking the enforcement of right of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However it is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents that though strictly speaking the principle of constructive res judicata shall not be applicable to Habeas Corpus Petitions seeking the enforcement of personal liberty guaranteed as a fundamental right by the Constitution of India, judicial etiquette shall prevent a second petition being sustained on the same grounds which were raised/considered and decided against the petitioner. It is the further contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that a Court dealing with such a question might have arrived at a wrong co