JUDGMENT Writ Petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Smt. Beena Devi on behalf of her husband (Kamal alias Kamal Deep Meena) (detenu) praying for quashing the detention order dated 31-12-2011 (Ann. 1) passed u/S. 3(1) of Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 2006 ("Act, 2006") & the order of confirmation dated 24-2-2012 (Ann.4) u/S. 13(1) of Act, 2006 detaining the detenu for a period of one year u/S. 14(1) from 31-12-2011 to 30-12-2012. 2. Only argument advanced in support of writ petition is infraction of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The material facts for the controversy raised are stated hereafter. 3. Kamal alias Kamal Deep Meena (detenu) was arrested on 30-12-2011 in relation to FIR 361/2011 of PS Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. Deputy Commissioner of Police (West) Jaipur submitted a report dated 30-12-2011 (Ann. R1) against the detenu stating therein that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in Explanation appended to S. 3 of Act, 2006. Taking note of detailed report of the DCP (West) Jaipur (supra), the detaining authority after having considered the material and evidence made available by sponsoring authority (DCP) and recording its satisfaction that the detenu is a dangerous person as defined in S. 2(c) and a property grabber as defined in S. 2 (i) of Act, 2006 having been active and connected with criminal world while 18 criminal cases are registered against him for serious offences e.g. attempt to commit murder, kidnapping, riots, loot, causing damage to the property, criminal trespass, forcefully taking possession over the land etc. and since his activities have been involved in criminal world over last long time, the detaining authority after being satisfied with respect to the detenu that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is imperative to make an order dt. 31-12-2011 directing that detenu be detained. The detenu was detained in pursuance of an order u/S. 3 of Act, 2006 and the grounds of detention along with documents were also served upon the detenu. The detaining authority vide letter dt. 3-1-2012 (Ann. R. 3) simultaneously reported the detention of detenu to the State Government together with grounds on which order of detention was made, seeking approval of detention order and the State Government vide order dt. 11-1-2012 (Ann. The detaining authority vide letter dt. 3-1-2012 (Ann. R. 3) simultaneously reported the detention of detenu to the State Government together with grounds on which order of detention was made, seeking approval of detention order and the State Government vide order dt. 11-1-2012 (Ann. R. 4) approved the detention order dt. 31-12-2011. 4. It is pertinent to refer that at the time of detention, the detenu was duly informed about his right to submit representation to the State Government/advisory Board/Rajasthan High Court or to the detaining authority. Pursuant to which, Banshidhar Meena father of the detenu sent representation dt. 10-1-2012 (Ann. R/5) to State Government assailing the reasons/grounds upon which order of detention dt. 31-12-2011 was passed by detaining authority. Representation was expeditiously dealt with by the State Government; in course whereof, on 11-1-2012 comments of detaining authority were called upon vide letter dt. 11-1-2012 (Ann. R6), and in response whereof, detaining authority vide letter dt. 13-1-2012 (Ann. R7) sent its comments which were received by State Government on 17-1-2012 and placed before competent authority for its consideration. After taking note of the comments and other material placed for its consideration and after due application of mind thereon, the competent authority rejected the representation made on behalf of the detenu and accordingly the decision taken by State Government upon representation made against the detention impugned was communicated to the father of detenu vide letter dt. 1-2-2012 (Ann. R8). 5. It is further to refer that while the representation was pending consideration with competent authority against order of detention impugned, case of the detenu was referred to the advisory Board as constituted u/S.10 of Act, 2006 on 18-1-2012 (Ann. R9) and the detenu was informed vide letter dt. 6-2-2012 (Ann. R10) that he may appear before the advisory Board on the date fixed 13-2-2012. The advisory Board expressed in its report dt. 13-2-2012 sent to the State Government that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu and acting upon the report of advisory Board, the State Government confirmed the order of detention impugned and continued the detention of detenu for a period of one year vide order dt. 24-2-2012 (Ann. R11). 6. Immediately after passing of the order dt. 24-2-2012, as alleged, Smt. Beena Devi on behalf of her husband (Kamaldeep Meena detenu) sent another representation (Ann. 5) addressing to the Governor of Rajasthan through registered post dt. 24-2-2012 (Ann. R11). 6. Immediately after passing of the order dt. 24-2-2012, as alleged, Smt. Beena Devi on behalf of her husband (Kamaldeep Meena detenu) sent another representation (Ann. 5) addressing to the Governor of Rajasthan through registered post dt. 29-2-2012 - in support whereof certificate dt. 22-5-2012 has been obtained from the Department of Post (Ann. 7) that registered article was delivered on 1-3-2012; and when the authority failed to decide successive representation, present writ petition came to be filed on behalf of the detenu through his wife on 27-3-2012. 7. However, in instant writ petition, order of detention impugned has been assailed on multifold grounds but while making submissions, counsel for petitioner has confined his submissions only with respect to the infraction of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 8. Since this fact has been disputed by respondents authority regarding the second representation dt. 29-2-2012 as allegedly being received on 1-3-2012 apart from postal receipt, documentary proof/certificate dt. 22-5-2012 of the Department of Posts shows that registered article sent on 29-2-2012 vide transaction No. RRO29513182IN was acknowledged and delivered on 1-3-2012. In support, Counsel relied upon a decision of Apex Court in M. A. Mohammed Ismail v. State Govt. of Tamilnadu (JT 1999 (10) SC 372) and submits that taking note of a documentary evidence for having sent the representation by post and receipt thereof by the concerned Ministry and the confirmation of postal authorities regarding delivery of the article, presumption can be drawn of the representation having been received by the addressee and it was since not disposed of, continued detention was bad and deserves to be quashed. 9. Counsel for petitioner further submits that S. 15 of Act, 2006 being analogous to S. 13 of the National Security Act, 1980 ("NS Act") in pursuance whereof, detenu has constitutional right to make representation guaranteed by Art. 22(5) of the Constitution which must be taken to include by necessary implication, constitutional right for proper consideration of representation by the authority to whom it is made. Right of representation embodied u/Art. 22(5) of the Constitution is a valuable right and is not as mere formality; as such the State Government was under legal obligation to consider the representation of detenu and keeping the same pending for indefinite period in archives of respondent's secretariat renders the very constitutional right guaranteed by Art. 22(5) illusory; and failing to take appropriate action upon the representation of detenu makes the order of detention bad in law and the detenu deserves to be set free. In support, counsel relied upon certain decisions of Apex Court in Sk. Abdul Karim v. State of WB ( AIR 1969 SC 1028 : (1969 Cri LJ 1446); Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India ( AIR 1981 SC 431 ) : (1980 Cri LJ 1487); Raghvendra Singh v. Supdt. District Jail, Kanpur ( AIR 1986 SC 356 ) : (1986 Cri LJ 493) followed in Rumana Begum v. State of Andh. Pradesh (1993 (Supp) (2) SCC 341) and Veeramani v. State of Tamilnadu (1995 AIR SCW 1730) : (1995 Cri LJ 2644). 10. Counsel for petitioner relying upon the DB judgment in Kalam alias Baba Khan v. State of Rajasthan (1990 Raj Cr Cases 6), further submits that there is no bar which could prevent the detenu for making second or successive representation provided there are new grounds based on fresh material or on subsequent events which may justify reconsideration of the matter upon fresh representation and that was for the competent authority to consider and decide expeditiously in accordance with. 11. Per contra, Government Counsel appearing for respondents contended that the representation submitted on behalf of detenu through his father immediately after passing of the order of detention impugned was sent for approval on 3-1-2012 (Ann. R3); upon which, the State Government sent its approval vide order dt. 11-1-2012 (Ann. R4) and immediately after the representation dt. 11-1-2012 having been sent by father of the detenu, it was duly examined without any loss of time within cloak work position and after taking comments from the detaining authority vide letter dt. 13-1-2012, the representation against impugned detention was duly considered on 30-1-2012 and the decision was taken by State Government rejecting the said representation and it was communicated vide order dt. 1-2-2012 (Ann. 13-1-2012, the representation against impugned detention was duly considered on 30-1-2012 and the decision was taken by State Government rejecting the said representation and it was communicated vide order dt. 1-2-2012 (Ann. R8); as such mandate of the requirement u/Art. 22(5) of the Constitution being enacted as safeguards to the detenu in case of preventive detention was fully complied with and successive representation apart from the fact that it was never received in the office of respondents authority, unless indicates new grounds based on fresh material having been taken while assailing the impugned detention, was not sustainable in the eyes of law and even if competent authority having failed in considering the representation, no prejudice in given circumstances could be said to have been caused to the detenu. 12. Government Counsel further urged that the State Government was not under legal obligation to decide successive representation as alleged to have been submitted sent through registered post on 29-2-2012; and further submits that instant habeas corpus petition is of no substance and deserves to be dismissed. 13. We have considered rival contentions made at the bar and with their assistance, examined the material placed for consideration. Since this fact has been disputed by respondents that successive representation addressed to the Governor, Government of Rajasthan allegedly sent by wife on behalf of the detenu through registered post on 29-2-2012 was received by the addressee, documentary proof/certificate dt. 22-5-2012 (Ann. 7) of the Department of Posts was placed on record to show that registered article sent on 29-2-2012 vide transaction No. RRO29513182IN was acknowledged and delivered on 1-3-2012. Taking note thereof, and further relying upon the decision of Apex Court in M. A. Mohammed Ismail v. State Govt. of Tamilnadu (JT 1999 (10) SC 372), this Court has no hesitation in holding that from the material evidence on record (Ann.7), representation dt. 29-2-2012 sent by wife on behalf of the detenu, a presumption would arise in respect of registered letter dt. 29-2-2012 regarding representation delivered to the addressee on 1-3-2012 and admittedly it could not have been decided by competent authority till date. 14. 29-2-2012 sent by wife on behalf of the detenu, a presumption would arise in respect of registered letter dt. 29-2-2012 regarding representation delivered to the addressee on 1-3-2012 and admittedly it could not have been decided by competent authority till date. 14. The judgments cited by Counsel for petitioner - reference whereof has been made (supra), are either in reference to the first representation made by the detenu and that was either sent to the advisory Board or failing to decide by competent authority and that being so, in that background, the matter was considered that inordinate delay in considering the representation would clearly amount to the infraction of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention unconstitutional and void. 15. It is trite that mandate u/Art. 22(5) of the Constitution guarantees constitutional right of the detenu for a proper consideration of his representation against detention and the obligation upon State Government is to afford an opportunity to the detenu to make representation against his detention, and to decide the same as early as possible. 16. In Smt. Gracy v. State of Kerala ( AIR 1991 SC 1090 ) question emerged for consideration before Apex Court was as to whether a legal obligation casted upon competent authority is independent from consideration of detenu's representation by the advisory Board. The Apex Court observed that Government while discharging its duty is under obligation to consider the representation when made as soon as possible on its own without being influenced by any such view of advisory Board and both have independent power to act on its own. 17. The DB of this Court in Kalam alias Baba Khan v. State (supra) relied upon by Counsel for petitioner to urge that there is no bar to prevent the detenu from making second representation, suffice it to reproduce what has been laid down by Division Bench ad infra: "10. We have gone through the scheme of the NSA and find nothing therein to prevent the petitioner from making the second or subsequent representation. We are quite conscious that if the grounds taken in the second or subsequent representation are the same, which the detenu had already taken in his earlier representation, it will be of no help to him because grounds already considered and rejected cannot be reconsidered. We are quite conscious that if the grounds taken in the second or subsequent representation are the same, which the detenu had already taken in his earlier representation, it will be of no help to him because grounds already considered and rejected cannot be reconsidered. A necessary corollary flows from this that if the second or subsequent representation is made on additional or fresh grounds, such additional or fresh grounds should be taken into consideration and a proper order should be passed thereon. The only authority to decide the question whether second or subsequent representation by the detenu is based on the same grounds taken earlier by him is the Central Government and that can be done only after the second or subsequent representation is taken into consideration. Unless the Central Government addressed itself to the second or subsequent representation of the detenu, how can it be said as to whether the grounds taken in it are the same as taken earlier or are fresh and additional. Whether or not the Central Government revoke the detention is a matter of discretion. But this discretion is coupled with a duty. The duty is to consider the second or subsequent representation and thereafter pass a proper order. The second or subsequent representation may be dismissed on the ground that it does not disclose fresh and additional grounds. But the consideration of second representation is a must. If the second or subsequent representation has not been considered it in itself is sufficient to vitiate the detention and render it illegal." 18. In Abdul Razak Dawood Dhanani v. Union of India ( AIR 2003 SC 4010 ) : (2003 Cri LJ 3079), the Apex Court also considered scope of second representation made by detenu or on his behalf, habeas corpus petition came to be filed when second or successive representation could not be decided by competent authority expeditiously and it was claimed by detenu that the action was infraction of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. The Apex Court taking note of its earlier decision in Ram Bali Rajbhar v. State of West Bengal (1975 Cr LJ 592) : ( AIR 1975 SC 623 ); State of Uttar Pradesh v. Zavad Zama Khan (1984 Cr LJ 922) : ( AIR 1984 SC 1095 ); and Sat Pal v. State of Punjab (1981 Cr LJ 1867) :( AIR 1981 SC 2230 ) noticed the observation appearing in that judgment and infra: "The making of an application for revocation to the Central Government under Section 11 of the Act is, therefore, part of the constitutional right a citizen has against his detention under a law relating to preventive detention. While Article 22(5) contemplates the making of a representation against the order of detention to the detaining authority, which has to be referred by the appropriate Government to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 8(a) of the Act, Parliament has, in its wisdom, enacted Section 11 and conferred an additional safeguard against arbitrary executive action." Thereafter this Court went on to hold :–– "The principle that emerges from all these decisions is that the power of revocation conferred on the Central Government under Section 14 of the Act is a statutory power which may be exercised on information received by the Central Government from its own sources including that supplied by the State Government under sub-section (5) of Section 3 or from the detenu in the form of a petition or representation. It is for the Central Government to decide whether or not it should revoke the order of detention in a particular case. In the present case, the detenu was not deprived of the right of making a representation to the detaining authority under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution read with Section 8 (1) of the Act. Although the detenu had no right to simultaneously make representation against the order of detention to the Central Government under Article 22(5) and there was no duty cast on the State Government to forward the same to the Central Government, nevertheless the State Government forwarded the same forthwith. The Central Government duly considered that representation which in effect was nothing but a representation for revocation of the order of detention under Section 14 of the Act. The Central Government duly considered that representation which in effect was nothing but a representation for revocation of the order of detention under Section 14 of the Act. That being so, it was not obligatory on the part of the Central Government to consider a second representation for revocation under Section 14." Taking note of consistent view of the Apex Court, it was observed in para 9 that even statutory power vested in the Central Government to revoke the order of detention may be exercised in its discretion only in cases where fresh materials or changed or new factors call for the exercise of that power; and there is no right in favour of the detenu to get his successive representations based on the same grounds rejected earlier to be formally disposed of again; as considered by a constitution Bench in Makhanlal Gokul Chand v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (2000 Cri LJ 378) : ( AIR 2000 SC 158 ). But whatever observed by the Division Bench in Kalam alias Baba Khan (supra) was not approved by the Apex Court in Abdul Razak Dawood Dhanani v. Union of India ( AIR 2003 SC 4010 : 2003 Cri LJ 3079) (supra) and after laying down the principles observed that if successive representation is based on fresh material or any subsequent event or changed or new factors calling for the exercise of statutory power, competent authority is under obligation to consider and decide it expeditiously in accordance with law and it has to be considered with due promptitude as his representation is required to be considered u/Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. 19. However, Apex Court after having perused first representation submitted by the detenu dt. 12-4-2002 as well second dt. 19-4-2002 and after scrutiny thereof, did not find any new ground/fresh material in second representation made by the detenu to the Central Government and finally observed that there remained no obligation on the part of the Central Government to pass any similar order which did not contain any new or fresh grounds justifying a fresh consideration. 20. It is settled principle of law that repeated representation cannot be considered expeditiously and with due promptitude provided they are based on the same facts and same cause of action. But, if new facts are brought on record and new grounds are alleged, then it would amount to fresh representation. 20. It is settled principle of law that repeated representation cannot be considered expeditiously and with due promptitude provided they are based on the same facts and same cause of action. But, if new facts are brought on record and new grounds are alleged, then it would amount to fresh representation. It would not amount to repeated representation. A fresh representation is required to be considered as expeditiously and with due promptitude as if first representation being required to be considered u/Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. 21. In view of what has been laid down by Apex Court (supra) and while applying principle of law in the instant case, this Court has looked into first representation sent on behalf of the detenu by his father dt. 10-1-2012 (Ann. R5) wherein he took all the pleas for quashing the order of detention impugned which could be raised under the parameters of law in sum & substance, on which comments were called for in furtherance thereof, detailed report dt. 13-1-2012 was sent which is a complete detailed discussion regarding reasons/grounds pointed out; that was considered by the State Govt., while rejecting his representation vide order dt. 1-2-2012 (Ann. R8). However, second representation by his wife on behalf of the detenu was sent on 29-2-2012 within a week after the detention order being confirmed vide order dt. 24-2-2012 and that representation was received on 1-3-2012 as is evident from certificate dt. 22-5-2012 of postal authority about delivery thereof to the addressee; but from a careful perusal of second representation, this Court finds that except change & different in language; in substance, representation which earlier came to be decided by State Government & second representation allegedly sent to the Governor of Rajasthan & delivered on 1-3-2012, having not been decided by the authority on the basis whereof, action of the competent authority as alleged to be infraction of the constitutional mandate u/Art. 22(5) of the Constitution, are based on the same line and we do not find any fresh material or changed or new factors in second representation dt. 29-2-2012 sent by the wife on behalf of detenu; rather found same material as stated in first representation. 29-2-2012 sent by the wife on behalf of detenu; rather found same material as stated in first representation. Having not found any fresh material or changed factors or subsequent event justifying consideration of the second representation on behalf of detenu, we are not persuaded to hold in the circumstances narrated (supra) that competent authority was under obligation to consider 2nd representation and pass order disposing of the same; moreso when grounds set out in first representation were earlier decided & rejected by the State Government after having sought comments from the detaining authority. We have no hesitation in holding that competent authority was not under obligation to pass similar order again on the second representation which did not contain new or fresh material justifying re-consideration. 22. Consequently, instant habeas corpus petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.