Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent, dated 26.12.2005, in C.M.P. No.3/P.B.M.S.E.C.Act/J3/2005, against the petitioner's husband Durai @ Durai samy, son of Chinnasamy, aged about 39 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Salem, set aside the same, direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated 26.12.2005, detaining her husband by name Durai @ Duraisamy under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for R-1 and R-2 and the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for R-3. 3. It is not in dispute that the very same petitioner, by filing HCP No.165 of 2006, challenged the same impugned proceedings dated 26.12.2005. It is also not in dispute that, by order dated 21.03.2006, after considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, this Court, holding that there is no merit in the said contentions, dismissed HCP No.165 of 2006. After dismissal of the said petition, now, the very same petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition, praying for quashing of the very same detention order. 4. Mr.V.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mainly contended that the representation, dated 3.4.2006, sent on behalf of the detenu to the Central Government, has not been considered and that no intimation was sent to the petitioner regarding the fate of the said representation. Though learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised an objection regarding maintainability of the above petition in view of the dismissal of the earlier petition, ie., HCP No.165 of 2006, order dated 21.3.2006, we are inclined to consider the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the specific stand of the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for R-3, that no such representation, dated 03.04.2006, was received by the third respondent. In view of the categorical statement made by the Counsel for R-3, we have no other option except to accept the same. 5. It is the specific stand of the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for R-3, that no such representation, dated 03.04.2006, was received by the third respondent. In view of the categorical statement made by the Counsel for R-3, we have no other option except to accept the same. 5. It is our duty to mention that while disposing of the earlier petition, i.e., HCP No.165 of 2006, this Court considered all the rival contentions and after perusing the relevant materials, dismissed the said petition. In view of the information furnished by the third respondent, even the only contention raised in this petition is liable to be rejected. Consequently, Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.