Gauhati High Court
Birbal Das @ Birbal Biswas vs Union Of India And 6 Ors on 8 February, 2019
Bench: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, Ajit Borthakur
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010276652018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 8647/2018
1:BIRBAL DAS @ BIRBAL BISWAS
S/O- LATE ADHAR BISWASR/O- VILL- RAKHAKHATA BAMUNPARA, P.S-
BILASHIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PRESENTLY R/O- NO. 1 UDAYAN
NAGAR, P.O- BELTOLA, P.S- BASISTHA, GUWAHATI- 781028, DIST-
KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
VERSUS
1:UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
REP. BY THE HOME SECRETARY, MIN OF HOME, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW
DELHI
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
HOME DEPTT
GOVT OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
3:THE MEMBER FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL
KAMRUP(M)
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI- 07
4:THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
CITY GUWAHATI
5:THE STATE COORDINATOR
REGISTER OF CITIZENS
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
Page No.# 2/3
GUWAHATI- 07
6:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
NEW DELHI- 110001
7:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP(M)
GUWAHATI- 0
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 08-02-2019 Heard Mr. R. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. AI Ali, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India and Mr. J Payeng, learned counsel for the State of Assam appearing for the Foreigners Tribunal and Border Areas, Ms. A Verma, learned standing counsel for the authorities under the NRC as well as Ms. G Sarma, learned counsel for the authorities under the Union of India.
2. On being referred by the Superintendent of Police, Border, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, the FT Kamrup (M) Case No.260/2011 was registered against the petitioner before the Foreigners' Tribunal Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner appeared, but in spite of adequate opportunities being given, the petitioner had neither filed any written statement nor any evidence was led. As the reference is statutorily required to be adjudicated within a period of 60 days, the Tribunal had no other option but to declare the petitioner to be a foreigner by the ex-parte order dated 31.10.2011.
3. Being aggrieved, this writ petition has been preferred.
Page No.# 3/3
4. We have heard Mr. R. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the writ petition. No legally admissible and acceptable reasons have been forwarded as to why the petitioner did not file the written statement and the evidence in spite of adequate opportunities being given. From the said point of view, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal dated 31.10.2011. But, however, as the order was passed ex-parte without the relevant materials being produced by the petitioner and taking into consideration the interest of justice, the petitioner is allowed to once again appear before the Tribunal for an adjudication on merit. But as because the petitioner had abandoned the proceeding without any acceptable reason, the ends of justice would be made that a cost of Rs. 15000/- is imposed on the petitioner to be deposited before the District Legal Services Authority, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. Upon the proof of the deposit of cost being produced, the petitioner shall appear before the Tribunal on 06.03.2019 along with a copy of the written statement to be filed. Upon such appearance, the Tribunal shall adjudicate the reference made against the petitioner within a period of 60 days thereof.
5. As the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal, but thereafter remained absent, the Tribunal by order dated 31.10.2011 have proceeded ex-party against the petitioner declaring to be a foreigner.
6. The ex-parte order dated 31.10.2011 is, accordingly, set aside.
7. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant