Gauhati High Court
Sunil Chandra Sarkar vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 29 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)2GLR433
Author: P.P. Naolekar
Bench: P.P. Naolekar, I.A. Ansari
JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, C.J.
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Ghose, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioner-appellant in the writ petition that the proceedings have been taken up on reference made by the Superintendent of Police, Nalbari before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Nathan against one Sri-Sunil Chandra Das, son of Sri Chandra Mohan Das resident of Village Narayan Gaon, PO Ghagrapar, District Nalbari under S. P. Nalbari Ref. No. 769/1987 and the case was registered as Case No. I.M.(D) T(Nal) 12/89. The Tribunal by its order dated 1.8.1989 had held that the said Sri Sunil Chandra Das is an illegal migrant within the meaning of Section 3(1)(c) of the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal Act, 1983, (hereinafter referred to as 'IMDT Act') and the reference is answered accordingly. It is further alleged by the appellant that in pursuance of the said order passed against Sunil Chandra Das the petitioner is being tried to be deported by the police officials at Nalbari and, therefore, prayed that necessary orders be issued restraining the police to deport the petitioner, whose name is Sunil Chandra Sarker @ Sunil Sarkar. The writ petition, i.e., Civil Rule No. 3550/93 was dismissed at the admission stage itself. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed.
3. While passing the order of dismissal the court has not mentioned by any order or notice issued to the petitioner for his deportation, Neither the counsel for the appellant could produce before us any order or notice issued either by the State Government or by the police officials at Nalbari for deportation of the appellant in pursuance of the order passed in Case No. IM(D)T (Nal)/89. In the absence of any notice or order we are unable to appreciate whether the action is being taken against the petitioner for deportation in pursuance of the order passed by the Tribunal. We feel that the steps taken by the petitioner-appellant in approaching the court are premature in absence of any specific order or notice issued either by the State Government or by the police officials for his deportation. In the circumstances, we hold that the petition filed by the petitioner is premature and is dismissed on the ground of premature presentation of the same. We make it clear that if any notice, order or action for deportation of the petitioner is taken either by the State Government or police officials, as is alleged by the petition appellant, he may approach this Court for redressal of his grievances. The writ petition and the appeal stands disposed.