S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Basanti Bai describing herself as the mother of one Vijay, alias, Pappu, son of Komalchand had sent the petition through post to Honble the Chief Justice, which under his directions, was registered on the judicial side. By this petition, a prayer was made for releasing her son, who had been detained under the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) SINCE the petitioner was unrepresented, Shri P. N. Singh, Advocate had been appointed to appear for the petitioner in this case. ( 3 ) IN the return, it has been pointed out by the respondents that by an order dated 25-5-1985 passed by District Magistrate, Jabalpur under section 3 (2) of the Act, the said Vijay, alias, Pappu has been detained. Besides other facts, it has also been pointed out that earlier a writ petition being Misc. Petition No. 2375 of 1985 had been filed by Komalchand Jam challenging the detention of the said detenu, but it was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 19. 9. 85. We had called for that record and went through the grounds taken in that petition as also the order passed therein. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in all fairness contended that he would not be urging any such ground, which stands decided in the earlier petition. In this connection, he referred to a decision of their Lordships in Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India and others, which lays down that the application of the doctrine of constructive res judicata is confined to civil actions and civil proceedings. This principle of public policy is entirely inapplicable to illegal detention and does not bar a subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 on fresh grounds, which were not taken in the earlier petition for the same relief. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the detenu was deprived of the opportunity of being defended by a counsel before the Advisory Board. In view of that objection, on our asking, learned Dy. Advocate General produced the relevant file before us and on a perusal thereof, we find that before the Advisory Board, the State was represented by an A. P. P, who also besides the detenu was heard. In view of that objection, on our asking, learned Dy. Advocate General produced the relevant file before us and on a perusal thereof, we find that before the Advisory Board, the State was represented by an A. P. P, who also besides the detenu was heard. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in A. K. Roy v. Union of India and another2 have observed that if the detaining authority or the Government takes the aid of a legal practitioner or a legal adviser before the Advisory Board, the detenu must be allowed the facility of appearing before the Board through a legal practitioner. As it is, the detenu has no right to appear through a legal practitioner in the proceedings before the Advisory Board. However, if such a facility has been given to the State Government, similar facility has to be given to the detenu. That having not been done, as their Lordships hold, Article 14 of the Constitution stands violated. The result, therefore, is that the detenu could not effectively defend himself. ( 5 ) ON this short ground, the order of detention of detenu Vijay, alias, Pappu deserves to be quashed. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The order dated 25. 5 1985 passed by District Magistrate, Jabalpur detainning Vijay, alias, Puppu is quashed. He is set at liberty, unless required to be detained in connection with any other case. Petition allowed. .