Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 19.2.2005 in Memo No.55/BDFGISV/2005 against the petitioner Senthilkumar, son of Manickam, aged about 28 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Chennai, set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. This is the second Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the petitioner/detenu, questioning the order of detention dated 19.02.2005, whereby, he has been detained as 'Immoral Traffic Offender' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) 2. It is the claim of the counsel for petitioner that all the issues raised have been considered and rejected in the earlier order dated 21.06.2005 in HCP No.206 of 2005, except the one, viz., the wife of the detenu was not allowed/permitted to appear before the Board and express her grievance. 3. Learned Government Advocate has placed the proceedings of the Advisory Board dated 31.03.2005. The said proceedings make it clear that, after considering the grounds of detention, report of the Detaining Authority to the Government, written representation of Thiru. V. Parthiban, Advocate, on behalf of the detenu, dated 25.02.2005, received though the Government and connected records, the Board heard the detenu also. It further shows that when the detenu was asked a specific question as to whether anybody has come to represent him, he answered that no one has come to represent him. In such circumstances, the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 4. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.