Gauhati High Court
Sudhir Paul @ Sudhindra Chandra Paul vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 3 December, 2019
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010128942017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 2811/2017
1:SUDHIR PAUL @ SUDHINDRA CHANDRA PAUL
S/O- LATE GOPAL PAUL, VILL- NAHERBARI, P.O- NAHERBARI, P.S-
GOGRAPAR, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN- 781349
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-
110001
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 6
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICEB
NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN- 781337
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER
NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN- 78133
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S SARKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
Page No.# 2/3
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 03-12-2019 Suman Shyam, J Heard Mr. S.C. Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigner's Tribunal appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Ms. G. Hazarika, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent no.1.
The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 16/01/2017 passed by the Member, Foreigner's Tribunal - 4, Nalbari, Assam, in FT Case No. (GH)417/2015, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as a foreigner of post 1971 stream.
The materials on record indicates that the petitioner has not been able to furnish any documentary evidence of having come to Assam from the specified territory on or before 01/01/1966 or for that matter, before the midnight of 24/03/1971. Rather the case of the petitioner is that he had migrated from East Pakistan in the year 1956 to West Bengal. If the petitioner had come to West Bengal from the specified territory, than by his own showing, the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit under Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which provision is specifically applicable only to those who had migrated to Assam before the cut off date and continued to reside in the State in ordinary course.
At this stage, Mr. Pandit submits that his client was compelled to migrate from East Pakistan due to religious persecution and this fact had been placed before the Tribunal in the form of an affidavit. However, the learned Tribunal did not consider the same in its correct perspective.
It may be correct that if the petitioner succeeds in establishing his case that he was compelled to leave the erstwhile East Pakistan due to religious persecution, than he might be entitled to some relief in the form of protection against an order of detention and deportation. However, this Court cannot reopen a factual enquiry nor enter into re-appreciation of evidence so as to record a fresh finding of fact.
Mr. Pandit has prayed for leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a review petition before the learned Tribunal. Since the said prayer is not opposed by the learned counsel representing the respondents, the same stands allowed.
The writ petition stands disposed of on withdrawal with liberty to prefer a review petition.
If the petitioner files review petition as per the prescription of law, the same be considered and disposed of by a reasoned order.
With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Page No.# 3/3 Send back the LCR.
JUDGE JUDGE Sukhamay Comparing Assistant