JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogia, J. 1. The detenu, namely, Sri Gauri Kt Das @ Babul Marak @ Mathura Das has been detained by an order dated 10th March, 2004 passed by the District Magistrate/Jorhat in exercise of powers Under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980. The aforesaid order of detention was approved by the State Government by an order dated 19th March, 2004 and the same was confirmed under the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act of 1980 by another order dated 7th May, 2004. Challenging the aforesaid orders and the detention of the detenu the instant writ application has been filed by the father of the detenu. 2. We have heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Ali, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. H. Rahman, learned senior CGSC appearing for the Union of India. 3. The pleadings made in the writ petition along with the affidavits filed on behalf of the State and the Union Government have been duly considered. 4. Though at the hearing several grounds have been urged in support of the challenge made, it is our considered view that the validity of the detention of the detenu is capable of being resolved by answering the ground urged with regard to the consideration of the detenu's representation submitted before the Central Government. In this regard, we have noticed that in the impugned detention order dated 10th March, 2004 there is no indication whatsoever of the right of the detenu to file a representation to any of the authorities who have been conferred the power to revoke the detention Under Section 14 of the Act. Notwithstanding the above, according to the detenu, he had filed a representation before the Central Government on 8.4.2004 and the grievance raised is that his representation filed before the Central Government has not been answered. As the Central Government is one of the authorities to revoke the detention of the detenu under Section 14 of the Act of 1980, the contention advanced is that the non-consideration of the detenu's representation dated 8th April, 2004 by the Central Government has transgressed the detenu's fundamental rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and, therefore, the detention is vitiated in law. 5. 5. The Central Government, in response to the writ petition, has filed its affidavit wherein there is a clear and categorical statement to the effect that no representation from the detenu was received by the Central Government. The State Government's affidavit also being largely silent on the aforesaid issue, this Court by order dated 21st December, 2004 had required the State respondents to place before this Court the records in original so as to enable the Court to assess the manner in which the detenu's representation submitted before the Central Government was processed by the State authorities. The records relevant having been placed before this Court on 6.1.2005 this Court on scrutiny thereof, did not find any indication in the said records as to the manner in which the detenu's representation submitted before the Central Government was processed by the State authorities. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 6th January, 2005 directed the State Government to file an additional affidavit indicating whether any representation dated 8th April, 2004 addressed to the Central Government was filed by the detenu and, if so, the manner in which the said representation was dealt with. 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 6th January, 2005 passed by this Court, the State Government has filed an additional affidavit on 17.1.2005. We have duly perused the said affidavit and, on such perusal, we do not find any averment made with regard to the representation addressed to the Central Government filed by the detenu before the jail authorities as against his detention. In fact, in the aforesaid additional affidavit dated 17th January, 2005, there is no statement whatsoever denying that any such representation dated 8th April, 2004 addressed to the Central Government was filed by the detenu. 7. In the aforesaid facts and in view of the clear and categorical orders passed earlier by this Court and the stand taken in the additional affidavit dated 17th January, 2005, the conclusion which is irresistible is that the detenu had filed a representation before the Central Government through the State authorities and the State authorities had not processed or forwarded the same to the Central Government. The conclusion that emanates from the above is an inevitable violation of the detenu's fundamental rights enshrined by Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The conclusion that emanates from the above is an inevitable violation of the detenu's fundamental rights enshrined by Article 22(5) of the Constitution. As the Central Government is competent and authorized to revoke the detention of the detenu and the representation filed by the detenu before the Central Government had not been forwarded to it by the State authorities, we have no alternative but to take the view that the detenu's right to file an effective representation was denied. In this regard, we feel fortified in the view taken by several pronouncements rendered by this Court including the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamleshkumar Ishwar Das Patel v. Union of India and Ors. and in Nutan J. Patel (Ms.) v. S.K. Prasad and Anr. (1986) 2 SCC 315. 8. In view of the conclusions recorded by us as above, it would not be necessary for us to go into and consider other points urged by the detenu. We, therefore, for the reasons assigned, set aside the order of detention dated 10th March, 2004, the order of approval of the said detention dated 19th March, 2004 as well as the order confirming the detention passed on 7.5.2004. We also direct that the detenu, namely, Sri Gauri Kt Das @ Babul @ Mathura Das be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. 9. Before parting with the record, there is a disquieting and disturbing feature which has confronted us in a large number of cases pertaining to preventive detention and which we now feel appropriate to be addressed. It has come to our notice that despite the repeated cautions sounded in a large number of pronouncements of this Court, the detaining authority, particularly the District Magistrates of the State of Assam have, for reasons not known, failed to adhere to the well laid down principles governing preventive detention. The denial of the rights of the detenus to be informed of their right to file a representation to all authorities who, under Section 14 of the National Security Act are competent to revoke the detention order is one such instance of non-adherence to the well established principles of law. The denial of the rights of the detenus to be informed of their right to file a representation to all authorities who, under Section 14 of the National Security Act are competent to revoke the detention order is one such instance of non-adherence to the well established principles of law. We, therefore, propose to hold an enquiry into the matter so as to satisfy ourselves as to the reasons why such non-adherence to the well established principles of law is repeatedly occurring in the State of Assam resulting in illegal detentions for a long period of time. We, therefore, direct the Registry to register a separate case and issue notice to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam as well as the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and the District Magistrate, Jorhat to explain within six weeks the reasons for non-adherence to the well established principles of law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court with regard to the procedure to be followed while effecting and implementing orders of preventive detention. Registry to act accordingly. 10. This writ petition accordingly stands closed. No costs.