The court emphasized that the failure to provide legible documents relied upon for detention impairs the right to make an effective representation, rendering the detention order illegal.

ORDER :

The petitioner is the wife of the detenue viz., Periyavan @ Murugan, aged about 44 years. The detenue has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.69/2023, dated 25.11.2023 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Ravi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. The detenue was the fourth accused in FIR in Crime No.708 of 2023 registered by the Thiruvidaimaruthur Police Station, Thanjavur, under Sections 25(1A) and 25(1B)(a) of ARMS ACT , 1959 altered to Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(i) IPC read with Sections 25(1A) and 25(1B)(a) of ARMS ACT , 1959.

4. We are conscious of the fact that this is the second Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the petitioner herein. Earlier, a petition filed in H.C.P. (MD) No. 1596 of 2023 had been dismissed by a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29.02.2024.

5. Mr.S.Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor had placed reliance on (i) the judgment reported in 2006 (2) MLJ (Crl) 699, Geetha -vs- State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government and another, for the proposition that a detenue cannot raise second Habeas Corpus Petition, a point which was available but not raised during the hearing of the first Habeas Corpus Petition and (ii) the judgment reported in 2009 (2) CIJ 197, Mohan @ Mohan Reddy -vs- Commissioner of Police and another , for the proposition that a second Habeas Corpus Petition can be filed only on new grounds that were not available at the time when the first Habeas Corpus Petition was dismissed.

6. It had been however held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is no bar in filing a second Habeas Corpus Petition. It had also been held that the earlier order will not act as res judicata. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ghulam Sarwar -vs- Union of India and others , [reported in AIR 1967 SC 1335], in paragraph No.9, had observed as follows:-

“.... in India the person detained can file original petition for enforcement of his fundamental right to liberty before a court other than the High Court, namely, this Court. The order of the High Court in the said writ is not res judicata as held by the English and the American Courts either because it is not a judgment or because the principle of res judicata is not applicable to a fundamentally lawless order. If the doctrine of res judicata is attracted to an application for a writ of habeas corpus, there is no reason why the principle of constructive res judicata cannot also govern the said application, for the rule of constructive res judicata is only a part of the general principles of the law of res judicata, and if that be applied, the scope of the liberty of an individual will be considerably narrowed. The present case illustrates the position. Before the High Court the petitioner did not question the constitutional validity of the President's order made under Article 359 of the Constitution. If the doctrine of constructive res judicata be applied, this Court, though it is enjoined by the Constitution to protect the right of a person illegally detai