Successive writ challenge to preventive detention on delay was rejected because the ground had already been raised earlier.

A successive writ petition challenging a preventive detention order on delay in execution and service was treated as an attempt to re-agitate an already available ground. The Court held that no fresh cause had arisen after the earlier round of litigation, and a cosmetic re-framing of the same objection did not make the third petition maintainable under Article 226. It further noted that the delay was largely attributable to the detenu's conduct and to prior judicial protection, so there was no inordinate or unexplained delay sufficient to vitiate the detention order. The challenge failed and the detention order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the third writ petition challenging the preventive detention order on the ground of delay in execution and service was maintainable, and whether the alleged delay vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: The detention order had earlier been challenged in prior proceedings, and the same ground of delay had been raised or was available to be raised before the Supreme Court and again in the second writ petition. The Court held that no fresh or subsequent ground had emerged after the earlier round of litigation. It further held that the delay was substantially attributable to the petitioner's conduct and to the operation of judicial protection granted in earlier proceedings, so the case did not disclose an inordinate or unexplained delay sufficient to defeat the detention order. The Court emphasised that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to re-agitate the same challenge by making a cosmetic or surgical variation of an already available ground.

Conclusion: The third writ petition was not entertained. The challenge based on delay in execution and service failed, and the detention order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A successive writ petition challenging a preventive detention order is not maintainable on a ground that was already available and substantially raised earlier, and mere re-framing of that ground does not constitute a fresh cause; delay attributable to the detenu or explained by prior judicial restraint does not by itself vitiate the detention.

---