Dismissed

Musstt Rahima Khatun v. the Union of India

Gauhati HC2 May 2018Review.Pet./48/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a review petition filed by a woman challenging her declaration as a foreigner. The court held that documents produced for the first time were inadmissible as they were not before the Tribunal or the writ court, following a Supreme Court industrial adjudication precedent.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; no merit found; additional documents rejected for non-production during earlier proceedings.

Musstt Rahima Khatun Vs the Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010013482018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Review.Pet. 48/2018

¶5

1:MUSSTT RAHIMA KHATUN

¶6

W/O MD. JAMSAD ALI, R/O VILL. MODERTOLI, P.O. MODERTOLI, P.S. DOBOKA, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE UNION OF INDIA

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7

¶12

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) HOJAI DIST. HOJAI ASSAM (SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) OF ERSTWHILE NAGAON DIST. OF ASSAM

¶13

5:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE DOBOKA POLICE STATION DIST. HOJAI ASSAM.

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HOJAI DIST. HOJAI

¶16

ASSAM (THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF ERSTWHILE NOGAON DIST. OF ASSAM

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U DUTTA

¶18

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

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 02-05-2018

¶23

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

¶24

Heard Mr. U Dutta, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. J Payeng, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal (FT).

¶25

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks review of order dated 09.11.2017, passed by the writ court dismissing the writ petition, being WP(C) No.5727/2016, filed by the petitioner assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 08.08.2016, passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon Court No.10^th at Doboka in FT(D) Case No.345/2015 (State Vs. Musstt. Rahima Khatun), declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971.

¶26

We find from the record that FT(D) Case No.345/2015 was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement and by adducing evidence. After a full length hearing, Tribunal had passed the order dated 08.08.2016 answering the reference in favour of the State in the above manner.

¶27

At this stage, we may mention that before the Tribunal, the following documents were exhibited by the petitioner: -

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

i) Ext.1 – Certified copy extract of voters list of 1966; ii) Ext.2 – Certified copy extract of voters list of 1993; iii) Ext.3 – Certified copy extract of voters list of 2010; iv) Ext.4 – Certificate of residence as well as of marriage issued by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary; and

¶30

v) Ext.5 – Statement of voter details from the office of State Co-ordinator, National Register of Citizens (NRC).

¶31

As stated above, all the exhibits filed by the petitioner were duly considered by the Tribunal while rendering the above opinion.

¶32

In the writ petition filed before this Court, the entire evidence adduced by the petitioner was again re-appreciated by the writ court whereafter, the finding recorded by the Tribunal was affirmed and the writ petition was dismissed.

¶33

In the review petition, petitioner has annexed some documents, viz, Annexure-A, which is stated to be an extract of voters list of 1966 wherein, the name of petitioner’s father appeared; Annexure-C stated to be a copy of sale deed executed on 12.05.1967 where the vendor was Moram Ali, whom the petitioner claims to be her father; copy of marriage certificate dated 05.03.1995 regarding marriage of the petitioner with Md. Jamshed Ali; and copy of Jamabandi of surveyed village where the name of the petitioner appears as the pattadar.

¶34

We are afraid, we can entertain this review petition. The above documents were neither exhibited before the Tribunal nor annexed to the writ petition. Therefore, these documents cannot be gone into at the stage of review. In Raj Kumar Dixit Vs. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker , reported in (2015) 9 SCC 345 , which was a case relating to industrial adjudication, Supreme Court has held that if any additional material is produced before the High Court without producing the same before the Labour Court at the first instance, it would be impermissible in law. High Court’s jurisdiction is to examine correctness of the award which is very limited. Therefore, producing additional materials/documents before the High Court is totally impermissible.

¶35

In the instant case, these documents were not even produced when the related writ petition was heard. It has now been produced seeking review of the writ court’s order. That apart, we have considered each of the four documents relied upon by the review petitioner

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

and we are of the opinion that none of these documents can come to the aid of the review petitioner in any manner. The finding of fact returned by the Tribunal on due appreciation of evidence was affirmed by the writ court on re-appreciation of the evidence. In such circumstances, no case for review is made out. For all the aforesaid reasons, we see no merit in the review petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

Registry to inform the concerned Foreigners Tribunal, Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police (Border) for necessary follow-up steps.

¶39

A copy of this order be furnished to learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and State Co-ordinator, NRC.

¶40

JUDGE JUDGE

¶41

Biplab

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Musstt Rahima Khatun v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musstt Rahima Khatun v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mulchand Mandal Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Sahadeb Chakma @ Hurrhaba Vs the C.B.I. and Anr.

M/S Radhika Traders Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Sharifa Khatun @ Sarifa Bibi Vs the State of Assam

Raju Uddin Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Mustafa @ Mustafa Mondal @ Mustayan Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.