Gauhati High Court
Surabala Namasudra @ Sarubala ... vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 11 February, 2020
Author: Manojit Bhuyan
Bench: Manojit Bhuyan, Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010268202017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 3258/2017
1:SURABALA NAMASUDRA @ SARUBALA NAMASUDRA
W/O- SHYAMLAL NAMASUNDRA, R/O- VILL NO.1, ANANDA NAGAR,
MAJORBARI, P.S- SILAPATHAR, DIST- DHEMAJI, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS.
MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER and SECY.
DEPTT. OF HOME
GOVT OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BORDER DHEMAJI
IMDTFT DHEMAJI
PIN- 787057
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAM NAGAR
DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN- 78705
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.K JAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Page No.# 2/4
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
11.02.2020 (Manojit Bhuyan, J) Heard Mr. A. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. G. Hazarika, learned counsel representing respondent no. 1. Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel represents respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Petitioner assails order dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Foreigners' Tribunal 2 nd, Dhemaji at Silapathar, declaring her to be a foreigner of post 24.03.1971 stream.
For the purpose of discharging burden as required under section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove that she is not a foreigner, the petitioner projected Prasanna Kr. Namasudra as her father. In support of her case, as many as 3 (three) documents were exhibited, particulars of which may be noticed as under:
(i) Exhibit-1 - Citizenship Certificate in the name of the petitioner's projected father Prasanna Kr. Namasudra.
(ii) Exhibit-2 - Registered Sale Deed in the name of the petitioner's projected father Prasanna Namasudra.
(iii) Exhibit-3 - Certificate dated 14.08.2016, issued by Md. Abdul Rouf, Gaonburah of village Formarpar, Thasubali, Akantu & Kapilipar in the name of the petitioner Surbala Namasudra, daughter of Lt. Prasanna Kumar Namasudra.
Besides the documents above and examination of herself as DW-1, the petitioner did not present for examination any independent witnesses in support of her case. The Exhibit-1 is the Citizenship Certificate where only the name of the petitioner's projected father is reflected. The Page No.# 3/4 petitioner did not produce and exhibit any document showing Prasanna Kr. Namasudra as her actual father. One registered Sale Deed at Exhibit-2, produced by the petitioner, did not stand proved, either through production of the original records or through the legal testimony of the custodian of the said document as per the provisions of law. Though the petitioner sought to establish link with her projected father Prasanna Kr. Namasudra by producing and exhibiting the Certificate of Gaonburah at Exhibit-3, however, the said document/certificate rendered itself as inadmissible in evidence, so much so, the author/issuing authority was not examined to prove the certificate and the contents thereof.
As the primary issue in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (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 her projected father Prasanna Kr. Namasudra.
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 bail granted by this Court on 12.06.2017 stands recalled.
Office to send back the case records to the Tribunal forthwith.
Page No.# 4/4 A copy of this order be made part of the case records of the Tribunal for future reference.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant