V. A. MOHTA, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS is the second round of challenge to the order of detention passed under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1930 against the petitioner-detenu Babula alias Ajitpal by the District Magistrate, Cuttack. The first round was in O. J. C. No. 4115 of 1994 decided on 3rd October, 1994. ( 2 ) A preliminary objection - which appears quite valid - is raised by the State Government as well as the Central Government against the maintainability of this second petition. The two points raised and urged in the earlier petition were :- (I) The grounds of detention do not have nexus with the maintenance of public order; and (II) There was undue and unreasonable delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu by the Central Government. Both the Governments were parties to that petition. They had filed affidavits explaining how the grounds were having nexus with public order and how the representation was disposed of without undue and unreasonable delay. One of the stated reasons for the delay was the time spent in getting the report of the Advisory Board. This Court had accepted the stand of the Government and had dismissed that petition. ( 3 ) IN the present petition, the only point urged is that there was no justification whatsoever for the Central Government to wait for the report of the Advisory Board for disposal of the petitioner's representation. Certain decisions of various courts dealing with the circumstances, in which waiting for the report of the Advisory Board was held to be unjustified, were also brought to our notice. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that since those decisions were not brought to the notice of the Court in the earlier petition, the second petition on that ground is maintainable. ( 4 ) LEGAL position of the competency of repeated petitions for habeas corpus is fairly well settled. It is universally accepted that the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata does not apply to habeas corpus petitions before the same court. In this connection our attention was rightly drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the case of Lallubhai v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 728 : (1981 Cri LJ 288 ). It is universally accepted that the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata does not apply to habeas corpus petitions before the same court. In this connection our attention was rightly drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the case of Lallubhai v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 728 : (1981 Cri LJ 288 ). But this does not mean that successive petitions can be filed in the same court on the very same grounds which were urged and decided in the earlier petition. On fresh grounds a successive petition is certainly maintainable but the petition will not be competent merely because additional angle or viewpoint is raised with regard to the ground which was urged and decided. To permit such repeated exercises would be against public interest and public policy. In this connection, useful reference may be made to the case of Poonam Lata v. M. L. Wadhawan, AIR 1987 SC 2098 : (1987 Cri LJ 1924 ). The context of that case is no doubt somewhat different, but the above ratio can be safely deduced therefrom. ( 5 ) APPLYING these basic principles to the matter at hand, it is amply clear that this second petition is not on a new ground, but is based on the very same ground rejected earlier. Under the circumstances, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. ( 6 ) B. N. DASH, J. , I agree. Petition dismissed. .