- (1.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order of detention dated 14-11- 2000, passed by the District Magistrate, Faizabad, under Section 3 (2) of the Na tional Security Act, 1980.
(2.) THE grounds of detention, upon which the order of detention was based, narrate a horrible story. According to the grounds of detention, the petitioner, his family and his friends have been in doctrinated and influenced by dogmatic religious preachings as a result of which he alleged to have placed a bomb in Sabarmati Express train. As a result of explosion of the said bomb the bodies of about ten persons were blown over in pieces. Such an incident also occurred in Aligarh Univer sity. THE person arrested there disclosed that he and the petitioner were involved in explosion of the bomb in Sabarmati Ex press train. It has been alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner accepted his involvement in the said inci dent in which ten persons were killed and damage was caused to the railways. In dealing with such matters, it was incumbent upon the District Magistrate to have acted with promptness but it is really unfortunate that the District Magistrate in the present case has acted in a most casual and lethargic manner. The National Security Act was enacted for such cases where national security is in danger due to sabotage and violence. A heavy duty is cast upon the executive authorities when passing such an order of detention, keeping in view the National Security Act and Article 22 (5) of the Constitution and to see that the detenu, who is detained under National Security Act, is given an opportunity to prefer a representation against his deten tion before the State Government as well as Central Government a under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.
(3.) SUCH a representation should be decided without any delay because under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution, it should be decided "as soon as possible". It is really unfortunate that large number of Habeas Corpus petitions are allowed only for the reason that the repre sentations are not decided promptly but the officers responsible for latches are never put to tasks. It is the bounden duty of the State to inform the officers, who have been given the power to pass such orders, the requirement of law as well as the prece dents of High Court and Supreme Court. But representations are often allowed to dust on the desk of the officers and often are decided belatedly.;