Gauhati High Court
Satyakumar Das vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors on 28 November, 2019
Author: Manojit Bhuyan
Bench: Manojit Bhuyan, Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010104232018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 3316/2018
1:SATYAKUMAR DAS
S/O- LATE SISURAM DAS, VILL- DILKUSH BINNAKANDI PT-I, P.O-
DILKUSH BAZAR, P.S- LAKHIPUR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM,
HOME DEPTT, DISPUR, GHY- 6
2:THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
HOME DEPTT
NEW DELHI
INDIA
3:THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER
OF INDIA
NIRVACHAN BHAWAN
NEW DELHI
4:THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 06
5:THE STATE COORDINATOR
NRC
ASSAM
GUWAHATI
Page No.# 2/4
6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CUM RETURNING OFFICER
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CACHAR
8:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B)
CACHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
9:THE ASSISTANT SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT OFFICER
JIRIBAM
MANIPUR
DIST- MANIPUR
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
28.11.2019 (Manojit Bhuyan, J) Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel representing respondent nos.1, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned counsel for respondent no.2; Ms. B. Das, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
Petitioner assails opinion dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Foreigners' Tribunal 5 th Silchar, ISBT, Page No.# 3/4 Ramnagar, Silchar, Cachar in Case No.F.T.5 th/9/2016, declaring him to be a foreigner and not a citizen of India.
For the purpose of discharging burden as required under section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove that petitioner is not a foreigner, as many as 5 (five) documents were exhibited by him, the particulars of which may be noticed as under :
(i) Exhibit-1 - Land Ownership Certificate issued by the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer, Jiribam, Manipur in the name of the petitioner, son of Late Sisu Ram Das, son of Late Kona Ram Das of Harinagar, Jiribam, as per land records of the year 1964- 1965.
(ii) Exhibit-2 - Certificate dated 20.06.1939 certifying conversion of one Sishu Ram Singh Choudhury, son of Late Konaram into the faith of Baisnaba.
(iii) Exhibit-3 - Deletion Certificate dated 07.03.2005, issued by the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, 40-Jiribam, A.C. stating that the petitioner was a voter of the said constituency in the year 2002 and thereafter he shifted from Jiribam AC to Fulertol, Cachar, Assam.
(iv) Exhibit-4 - Copy of Elector Photo Identity Card of the petitioner.
(v) Exhibit-5 - Electoral Registration Certificate in the name of one Kuloram Das and three others.
Besides the documents above, the petitioner did not present for examination any independent witnesses.
From the available records it is seen that the petitioner tried to establish linkage to the projected grandfather Konaram Das, through the projected father Sishu Ram Das. The petitioner also tried to draw lineage from one Kuloram Das of Exhibit-5 Electoral Registration Certificate, by projecting that Kona Ram Das and Kuloram Das are one and the same person, being the projected grandfather. If this be so, there is utter discrepancy, in that, from Exhibit-1 the grandfather appears to have died during 1964-65; from Exhibit-2 the grandfather died on 20.06.1939 and from Exhibit-5 the grandfather is shown alive in 1965. It is inherently absurd. Strangely, no voter lists of projected father and/or that of the petitioner were produced and exhibited showing their existence and/or their relationship with each other. Apart from this, the Exhibits-1, 2, 3 and 4 rendered itself as inadmissible in evidence, inasmuch as, the authors/issuing authorities were not examined to prove the same and the contents thereof.
As the primary issue in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners Page No.# 4/4 (Tribunals) Order, 1964 relates to determination as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not, the relevant facts being especially within the knowledge of the proceedee, therefore, the burden of proving citizenship absolutely rests upon the proceedee, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, 1872. This is mandated under section 9 of the aforesaid Act, 1946. In the instant case and as observed above, the petitioner not only failed to discharge the burden but also utterly failed to make proof of the most crucial aspect, that is, in establishing linkage to his projected father Sishu Ram Das, and through him to the projected grandfather Kuloram Das @ Konaram Das.
On the available materials, we find that the Tribunal rendered opinion/order upon due appreciation of the entire facts, evidence and documents brought on record. We find no infirmity in the findings and opinion recorded by the Tribunal. We would observe that the certiorari jurisdiction of the writ court being supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction, this Court would refrain from reviewing the findings of facts reached by the Tribunal. No case is made out that the impugned opinion/order was rendered without affording opportunity of hearing or in violation of the principles of natural justice and/or that it suffers from illegality on any ground of having been passed by placing reliance on evidence which is legally impermissible in law and/or that the Tribunal refused to admit admissible evidence and/or that the findings finds no support by any evidence at all. In other words, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case demonstrating any errors apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference of the impugned opinion.
On the discussions and findings above, we find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.
Interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 31.05.2018 stands recalled.
Office to send back the case records to the Tribunal forthwith.
A copy of this order be made part of the case records of the Tribunal for future reference.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant