Gauhati High Court
Bijoy Das vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 24 February, 2020
Bench: Manojit Bhuyan, Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010218912019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 6825/2019
1:BIJOY DAS
S/O. BHUPENDRA DAS, VILL. DHUMKAR, KALIBARI BASTI, P.S.
BORKHOLA, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788110.
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001.
2:THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-110006.
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION (NRC)
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005.
5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788001.
6:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE
CACHAR
Page No.# 2/4
ASSAM
PIN-788001.
7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
BORKHOLA POLICE STATION
P.O. BORKHOLA
ASSAM
PIN-788110
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A H ALAMGIR
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 24-02-2020 Heard Mr. A. H. Alamgir, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned counsel representing respondent no. 1, Ms. B. Das, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. J. Payeng, the learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal, representing respondent nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 and Ms. A. Verma, the learned Standing Counsel, NRC, for respondent no.4.
In this writ petition, the petitioner Bijoy Das has challenged the opinion dated 20.07.2018, passed by the Foreigner Tribunal 3rd, Silchar, Cachar, Assam, in F.T. Case No.744/2007, declaring him to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream.
On a reference made by the Superintendent of Police Border, Cachar, Silchar, the Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner asking him to prove his Indian Citizenship. The petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed his written statement. The petitioner claimed therein that he was born on 30.01.1988 at Borkhola in the district of Cachar to his projected father Bhupendra Chandra Das. The petitioner has stated that his projected father Bhupendra Chandra Das paid land revenue to a zamindar at Borkhola on 30.12.1957. According to the petitioner he studied in Raja Govinda Chandra Page No.# 3/4 Memorial Higher Secondary School, to that effect the said school has issued a certificate to him on 08.05.2015. Without filing any Voter List in his name, the petitioner has filed his voter ID card. On conclusion of the hearing the tribunal passed the impugned opinion.
We have carefully gone through the impugned opinion.
The documents produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal are -
1) Exhibit-1 is the Sale Deed of 1941 executed in East Pakistan;
2) Exhibit-2 is the land revenue paying receipt;
3) Exhibit-3 is the Voter List of 1997;
4) Exhibit-4 is a school transfer certificate obtained on 18.05.2015;
5) Exhibit-5 is the voter ID card;
Exhibit-1 is the Sale Deed that was executed in the year 1941 at East Pakistan so this document has no relevant in the present case.
Exhibit-2 is the land revenue paying receipt of the year 1967 none was examined in order to prove this document. In Narbada Devi Gupta Vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal reported in (2003)8 SCC 745 the Supreme Court has held that mere marking a document as an exhibit is not enough, its execution is to be proved by an admissible evidence.
Exhibit-3 is the Voter List of 1997. This Voter List bears the name of Bhupen Das, the projected father of the petitioner.
Page No.# 4/4 Exhiti-4 is the school transfer certificate disclosing the petitioner to be a son of Bhupendra Das but none was examined to prove this document. Here also Narbada Devi Gupta,s case(supra) is applicable.
Exhibit-5 is the Voter ID card. A Voter ID card, per se, does not prove one's citizenship anything without any supporting documents.
So, at this stage what remains is the Exhibit-3, the Voter Lists of 1997, to prove his citizenship. It contains the name of the projected father of the petitioner. In this document the age of his projected father is stated to be 55 years. No Voter List prior to 1997 pertaining to Bhupendra Chandra Das has been filed. Apart from that, the petitioner has not filed any Voter List containing his own name or any voter list showing him as the son of Bhupendra Das. So, at this stage we find ourselves foreclosed against all options but to hold that the petitioner has totally failed to establish his link with his projected father.
Thus we find that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence placed before it.
As a writ Court we exercise supervisory power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and we could not find any perversity in the opinion of the Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition is found to be without any merit and accordingly stands dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant