“6. The preliminary question, therefore, to be considered is, whether the doctrine of constructive res judicata applies to a subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus on a ground which he "might and ought" to have taken in his earlier petition for the same relief. In England, before the Judicature Act, 1873, an applicant for habeas corpus had a right to go from court to court, but not from one Bench of a court to another Bench of the same court. After the Judicature Act, 1873, this right was lost, and no second application for habeas corpus can be brought in the same Court, except on fresh evidence. In re. Hastings (No. 3), (1958) 3 All ER 625. Lord Parker, C. J., after surveying the history of the right of habeas corpus, arrived at the conclusion that it was never the law that in term time, successive writs of habeas corpus lay from Judge to Judge. In re Hastings (No. 4), (1959) 1 All, ER 698. Harman, J. pointed out that since the Judicature Act had abolished the three independent Courts, namely, the Court of Exchequer, the Kings Bench Division, and the Common Pleas, and had constituted one High Court, when an application for writ of habeas corpus has been disposed of by one Divisional Court, no second application on the same ground lies to another Divisional Court of the High Court. This position was given statutory recognition in the Administration of Justice Act, 1960. ”
