Gauhati High Court
Tasiran Bibi @ Kachiran Bibi vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 5 April, 2022
Author: N. Kotiswar Singh
Bench: N. Kotiswar Singh, Nani Tagia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010060672022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2482/2022
TASIRAN BIBI @ KACHIRAN BIBI
D/O LATE KASHEM ALI, W/O RAJU SK, R/O VILL-SHYAMCHARANER KUTI,
PT. III, P.S.-GAURIPUR, DIST-DHUBRI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THE
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GRIHA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
(REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
NIRVACHAN SADAN
ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI-110001
4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
GUWHAATI-781005
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DHUBRI
P.O.-DHUBRI
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-
Page No.# 2/4
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER)
DHUBRI
P.O.-DHUBRI
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
ORDER
Date : 05-04-2022 (N. Kotiswar Singh, J.) Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of Mr. R.K.D Choudhury, learned ASGI; Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, FT; Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, ECI; Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, NRC and Ms. U. Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam.
2. As prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as also not objected by Ms. Verma, learned Special Counsel, FT and having examined the matter ourselves, we are of the view that the matter perhaps requires to be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration.
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the ex parte opinion dated 07.07.2021 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (4 th), Dhubri in Case No.FT-4/93/GPR/2017 by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a resident of village Shyamcharaner Kuti Pt.III. It appears that the authorities have wrongly described her to be a resident of village Shyamcharaner Kuti Pt.I as reflected in the impugned order. As a result of the said wrong description of her address, the petitioner did not receive any summon from the Tribunal. On the other hand, the Tribunal proceeded with the matter by Page No.# 3/4 deeming that notice had been properly served upon the proceedee.
5. In paragraph-2 of the impugned opinion, it has been mentioned that the Process Server had visited the area of the proceedee and when he asked about the proceedee among the villagers of the locality, he came to know that the proceedee had gone to somewhere else leaving the aforesaid village. Accordingly, the Process Server affixed a copy of the notice on the wall where the proceedee last resided. The Tribunal took the view that though the notice was duly served, the proceedee did not appear before the Tribunal on the dates fixed by it. The Tribunal, accordingly, proceeded ex parte against the petitioner.
6. As regards the contention of the petitioner that she is a resident of Shyamcharaner Kuti Pt.III, the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the voters list of 1997 where her name appears in respect of 24 Gauripur LAC in which her name is shown against village Shyamcharaner Kuti Pt.III. It has been also stated that the petitioner has been staying in village Shyamcharaner Kuti Pt.III after her marriage with Raju Sheikh and, as such, submits that great prejudice will be caused to her if the petitioner is not afforded an opportunity to contest the claim of the State that she is a foreigner and not an Indian merely because of the aforesaid wrong description of the address.
7. We are of the view that since the petitioner herself has approached this Court seeking to contest the claim of the State that she is a foreigner and not an Indian and since there is prima facie material to show that she is indeed a resident of Shyamcharaner Kuti Pt.III and not Shyamcharaner Kuti Pt.I, it can be clearly inferred that no notice had been served upon the petitioner. In the notice, the petitioner has been shown to be a resident of Shyamcharaner Kuti Pt.I, though she is a resident of Shyamcharaner Kuti Pt.III.
8. For the reasons discussed above, we allow this petition by setting aside the impugned ex parte order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (4 th), Dhubri in Case No.FT-4/93/GPR/2017.
9. The petitioner will, accordingly, appear before the Tribunal on 11.05.2022 and file her written statement and supporting documents and adduce evidence in accordance with law. The Tribunal, after hearing the petitioner, will pass a fresh opinion as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner.
Page No.# 4/4
10. It goes without saying that since the citizenship of the petitioner is under cloud, the petitioner will be allowed to remain on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri. The concerned Superintendent of Police (Border) 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 Dhubri district without giving details of the place of destination and her place of stay to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri.
11. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant