Successive Article 226 writ petitions barred where preventive detention challenge raised no new ground or exceptional circumstance.

A second writ petition under Article 226 challenging preventive detention is not maintainable where the earlier petition was fully heard and dismissed on merits, the later ground was available at that time, and no fresh facts, fresh evidence, or exceptional circumstance is shown. Successive petitions are permissible only when a new ground arises after the first decision or where an earlier omission is otherwise justified. A mere additional facet or argument on an existing ground does not justify reopening the matter, and finality in such proceedings must be preserved.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second writ petition under Article 226 challenging preventive detention was maintainable after the first petition had been dismissed on merits, where the ground raised in the second petition was available earlier and no fresh facts, fresh evidence, or exceptional circumstance was shown.

Analysis: The first petition had been fully heard and rejected on merits. The second petition did not rest on any new event arising after the earlier decision. The ground urged in the later petition was already available when the first petition was decided, and the detenu had been vigilant enough to raise several other objections in that proceeding. The Court held that successive petitions under Article 226 are permissible only where a fresh and new ground arises after the first decision or where, for some exceptional reason, an existing ground was omitted earlier. An additional facet or argument on the same available ground does not make the second petition maintainable. The Court also emphasized the need for finality in such proceedings and rejected the attempt to reopen an issue that could and should have been raised earlier.

Conclusion: The second writ petition was not maintainable and was answered against the petitioner.

---