Gauhati High Court
Nabiran Nessa vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 13 March, 2019
Author: A.M. Bujor Barua
Bench: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, Ajit Borthakur
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010050602019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 1611/2019
1:NABIRAN NESSA
W/O- MANIK MONDAL @ MANIK, R/O- VILL- SATRAKANARA, P.O-
BAGHBAR, P.S- BAGHBAR, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI- 110001
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 06
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BARPETA
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781301
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B)
BARPETA
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781301
5:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
GOVT OF INDIA
NEW DELHI- 01
Page No.# 2/3
6:THE ASSAM STATE COORDINATORS
NRC
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI- 0
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
O R D E R
13.03.2019 (A.M. Bujor Barua, J) Heard Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A Ali, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India, Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the State of Assam appearing for the Foreigners Tribunal and Border Affairs 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), Barpeta,IM(D)T Case No.7722/A was registered against the petitioner. Upon the IMDT Act of 1983 being declared ultra-vires, the reference against the petitioner was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal No.4, Barpeta and was renumbered as Case No.FT 723/2016. After receiving the notice, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed her written statement. Thereafter, without any valid and acceptable reason, the petitioner remained absent and did not appear before the Tribunal. In the consequence, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner, who entered the State of Assam after 25.03.1971 by the ex-parte order dated 05.11.2018.
3. Being aggrieved, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. Even in the writ petition, which is being heard today, no acceptable reason is forthcoming as to why the petitioner had abandoned the proceeding before the Tribunal. In the circumstance, we are of the view that we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 05.11.2018 of the Tribunal. But Page No.# 3/3 as the petitioner had been declared to be a foreigner by the Tribunal without going into the merit of the case and having not placed any materials on record, we are of the view that the petitioner deserves another opportunity to prove her citizenship.
4. Accordingly, the ex-parte order dated 05.11.2018 is set aside. But, however, as no acceptable reason is forthcoming, which does not warrant setting aside of the ex-parte order, we are of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost to be deposited before the District Legal Services Authority, Barpeta. Upon the proof of depositing the payment of Rs.10,000/- before the District Legal Services Authority, Barpeta, the petitioner shall appear before the Tribunal.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner shall appear before the Tribunal on 23.04.2019. After the appearance of the petitioner before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall decide the reference within a period of 60 days therefrom. In the event, the petitioner does not appear before the Tribunal or does not co-operate with the Tribunal in any manner, the Tribunal would be at liberty to pass any order against the petitioner as per law.
The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant