Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Mazibar Miah vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 13 February, 2019

Bench: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, Ajit Borthakur

                                                                Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010022042019




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : WP(C) 871/2019

         1:MAZIBAR MIAH
         S/O BADSHA MIAH
         R/O VILL- KARERTAL
         P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM,
          PIN- 781301
         PHONE NO. 98648-12970.

         VERSUS

         1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
         TO BE REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA,
         DEPARTMENT OF (HOME AFFAIRS)
         NEW DELHI, INDIA.

         2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
          NEW DELHI- 110001


         3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
         TO BE REP. BY THE SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
          DEPARTMENT OF HOME
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI -6.


         4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION (NRC)
         ASSAM.


         5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
          KAMRUP
          DIST.KAMRUP
         ASSAM
                                                                                Page No.# 2/3



            6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             KAMRUP
             DIST. KAMRUP
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B K SEN

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.




                                 BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

                                              ORDER

Date : 13-02-2019 AM Bujor Barua, J Heard Mr. BK Sen, 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, FT Case No. 615 of 2015 was registered against the petitioner.

3. In course of the proceeding, the petitioner desired to exhibit certain documents like draft chitha, Jamabandi, voter lists of 1966, 1970, 2013 and 2016 in order to rely upon them to discharge the burden of proof that he is not a foreigner. In course of the proceeding, petitioner files an application under Order -16 Rule 14 read with Section-151 of the CPC which was registered as Petition No. 475, dated 01.11.2018, by which a prayer was made that summons be issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta or to the Circle Officer, Barpeta or to the Lat Mandal of Kalgachia Circle to produce the original records like Draft chitha, Jamabandi, voter lists of 1966, 1970, 2013 and 2016 and to give evidence in that respect. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal by the order dated Page No.# 3/3 03.01.2019.

4. Although we are not in agreement for the reasons stated in the said order, but on principle, we are of the view that neither the Deputy Commissioner nor the Circle Officer or the Lat Mandal is required to be summoned in a proceeding in the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order 1964 for the purpose of giving evidence as regards the draft Chitah, Jamabandi or the voter lists of 1966, 1970, 2013 and 2016. In our view, all the aforesaid documents are public documents of which certified copy can be obtained by the proceedee . Section 77 of the Evidence Act clearly provides that a certified copy need not be proved if given in evidence.

5. Accordingly, we find no merit in this writ petition for continuing any further.

6. It is provided that if the petitioner desires to rely upon any of the aforesaid documents, which are public documents, the petitioner may obtain certified copy of the same and produce it before the Tribunal.

7. However, it is provided that if the evidence of the aforesaid officers is required for any other purpose beyond the evidence as regards the existence of the public documents, the Tribunal would be at liberty to pass any order thereon.

8. Writ petition stands disposed as indicated above.

                JUDGE                                      JUDGE




Comparing Assistant