Gauhati High Court
Jahirul Ali @ Jahidul Islam vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 17 December, 2018
Author: Manojit Bhuyan
Bench: Manojit Bhuyan, Nani Tagia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010224862018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 7059/2018
1:JAHIRUL ALI @ JAHIDUL ISLAM
S/O KADER ALI @ ABDUL KADER, VILLAGE CHOTTO ALLIA, P.S.
GHOGRAPAR, DIST. NALBARI (ASSAM).
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-
110001
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN- 781337.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN- 781335
5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NEW DELHI- 110001.
Page No.# 2/4
6:STATE CO-ORDINATOR
NRC
ASSAM
GUWAHATI.
7:THE FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL 4
GHOGRAPAR
P.O- GHOGRAPAR
DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN 78133
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C PANDIT
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
O R D E R
17.12.2018 (Manojit Bhuyan, J) Heard Mr. S.C. Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. G. Sarmah, learned counsel for respondent no.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for respondent nos.3, 5, 6 & 7; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
Petitioner assails the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Foreigners' Tribunal, 4 th Nalbari (Ghograpar), Assam in F.T. Case No (Gh) 165/2015, declaring him as a foreigner of post 1971 stream.
For the purpose of establishing link to a predecessor of Indian origin relatable to a period prior to the cut-off date i.e. 24.03.1971, the petitioner have projected one Ahmad Ali as his grandfather, whose name is recorded in the Annual Khiraj Patta dated Page No.# 3/4 15.09.1965 of village Namati (Exhibit-1), as well as the Sale Deed dated 24.02.1971 (Exhibit-2). To complete the chain the petitioner produced and exhibited the certified copy of the Voter List of 1971 of village Namati (Exhibit-3), recording the names of one Md. Ahmad Ali, s/o Songsher Ali; Jamiran Nessa, w/o Ahmad; Kader Ali, s/o Ahmad and Johura Khatun, w/o Kader Ali. Jamiran Nessa is projected as the grandmother, whereas Kader Ali and Johura Khatun are projected as the father and mother of the petitioner. In the Elector Photo Identity Card (Exhibit-5) the petitioner is shown with relationship with one Abdul Kader and in the Voter List of 2014 (Exhibit-6) the petitioner's name is recorded showing A. Kader as the father. Besides the Elector Photo Identity Card (Exhibit-
5), the Voter List of 2014 (Exhibit-6) is relied upon to establish linkage to Kader Ali, s/o Ahmad, as recorded in the Voter List of 1971 (Exhibit-3). It is submitted that Kader Ali of 1971 Voter List and A. Kader of 2014 Voter List are one and the same person.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records in original. We find from the Voter List of 1971 (Exhibit-3) that whereas Jamiran Nessa i.e. the projected grandmother of the petitioner is shown aged 34 years, the projected father i.e. Kader Ali is shown aged 25 years. The inherent improbability so apparent is that the difference of age between Jamiran Nessa and her son i.e. Kader Ali is 9 years. In the said Voter List of 1971 the projected mother of the petitioner i.e. Johura Khatun is also shows as 11 years. Be that as it may in the said Voter List of 1971, Kader Ali is shown as son of Ahmad whereas in the Voter List of 2014 the petitioner Jahidul Islam is shown as the son of A. Kader. There are no explanations brought on record before the Tribunal substantiating that A. Kader of 2014 Voter List and Kader Ali of 1971 Voter List are one and the same person. This would mean that the petitioner failed to establish linkage to Ahmad Ali of Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 through A. Kader of Voter List of 2014, who is shown to be his father. It is also surprising to note that for the period between 1971 to 2014 the petitioner did not produce and/or exhibit any Voter Lists to establish his direct linkage to Kader Ali, s/o Ahmad of 1971 Voter List. No linkage is also established by any evidence of father and son relationship between A. Kader of 2014 Voter List and Ahmad Ali of Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 documents. No evidence by any of Page No.# 4/4 the parents of the petitioner was adduced, although they are stated to be alive. To fill up the gap of the absence of any Voter Lists between the period 1971 to 2014, the petitioner have enclosed in the present writ petition the Voter List of 1997 and 1985 to show one Ahmad/ Ahmad Ali as the father of A. Kader. In this regard, we can only make an observation that having regard to the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also having regard to the fact that certiorari jurisdiction is supervisory and not an appellate jurisdiction, the fresh documents introduced in the present writ petition cannot be looked into, those not having been proved before the Tribunal at the first instance.
From the foregoing, there can be no gainsaying that the petitioner utterly failed to establish that Ahmad Ali of Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 document is his grandfather through A. Kader of 2014 Voter List, who is the father of the petitioner. We also hold that the petitioner failed to establish that Kader Ali of 1971 Voter List is his father and/or that Kader Ali and A. Kader are one and the same person. We find no infirmity in the opinion rendered by the Tribunal, which would mean that the present writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, which we accordingly do. No cost.
Office to send back the case records to the Tribunal forthwith.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant