Gauhati High Court
Md. Surab Ali @ Sorhab Ali vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 30 September, 2022
Author: N. Kotiswar Singh
Bench: N. Kotiswar Singh
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010192322022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6198/2022
MD. SURAB ALI @ SORHAB ALI
S/O. LT. AFIL SHEIKH, VILL. NO.1 AARIMARI N.C. P.S. DOLGAON, DIST.
DARRANG, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.
2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NIRVACHAN SADAN
ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI-110001.
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
4:THE STATE COORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZEN
GS ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005.
5:THE MEMBER
FOREIGNER/S TRIBUNAL
JORHAT
ASSAM-785001.
Page No.# 2/4
6:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (B)
SIVASAGAR
ASSAM-785640
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
Date : 30-09-2022 (N. Kotiswar Singh, J.) Heard Mr. M. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Special Counsel, FT; Ms. L. Devi, learned CGC as well as Standing Counsel, NRC and Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the ex parte opinion dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat in Case No.FT/SVR/127/2003 by which the petitioner has been declared to be a foreigner, who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971 without any valid document.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that after receiving summons from the Tribunal, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and sought for time to file written statement. Unfortunately, the petitioner could not file written statement on two occasions, namely, on 07.07.2022 and 18.07.2022. Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded the matter ex parte without the written statement of the petitioner.
4. It has been submitted that inability of the petitioner to file written statement was because he was seeking some more time to collect some relevant documents and, as such, it cannot be said that there was undue negligence on the part of the petitioner.
5. We have gone through the opinion passed by the Tribunal.
6. We have noted that the petitioner could not file written statement on two occasions, i.e., on 07.07.2022 and 18.07.2022.
Page No.# 3/4
7. Ms. Verma, learned Special Counsel, FT submits that failure to file written statement by the petitioner is because of his own fault and no blame could be put on the Tribunal. Moreover, this is a long pending case of 2003 and, as such, the petitioner ought to have collected all the relevant documents and the delay is merely to prolong the proceeding.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that petitioner must take all prompt steps to file necessary written statement or evidence. However, we are also of the view that it will be desirable on the part of the Tribunal that before a person is declared a foreigner, it should ordinarily be based on the merit of the case and not by way of default.
9. In the present case, the opinion was not rendered on merit but the opinion declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner was rendered on default on failure of the petitioner to file written statement.
10. Considering the importance and significance of the right of citizenship, we are inclined to allow this writ petition, however, on the condition that the petitioner will take prompt steps for filing of the written statement and also the relevant documents, which he may rely on in support of his claim.
11. Accordingly, we allow this petition by setting aside the impugned opinion dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat in Case No.FT/SVR/127/2003..
12. The petitioner will, accordingly, file his written statement within one month from today failing which the Tribunal will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in this regard.
13. It is submitted that the petitioner has been detained on the strength of the order dated 29.07.2022. If that is so, the petitioner may be released on bail so as to enable him to appear before the Tribunal and prosecute his claim before the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the petitioner may be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sivasagar. The Superintendent of Police (Border), Sivasagar shall also take steps for capturing the fingerprints and biometrics of the iris of the petitioner, if so advised.
The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Sivasagar district without furnishing the details of the place of destination and necessary information including contact number to the Page No.# 4/4 Superintendent of Police (Border), Sivasagar.
The Superintendent of Police (Border), Sivasagar shall remain in touch with the Superintendent of Police (Border), Jorhat where the Tribunal is located.
14. On filing of written statement by the petitioner, the Tribunal shall proceed with the matter and then pass a fresh opinion regarding the citizenship status of the petitioner.
15. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant