Remanded

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

Gauhati HC2 May 2018WP(C)/1583/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the Gauhati High Court considered the quashing of an order declaring the petitioner a foreigner. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order for inquisitorial convenience, granted the petitioner time to adduce evidence, and fixed a date for his production in custody to continue hearings.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 05.09.2017; ordered production of petitioner before Foreigners Tribunal on 23.05.2018.

Mustafa @ Mustafa Mondal @ Mustayan Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010040242018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 1583/2018

¶5

1:MUSTAFA @ MUSTAFA MONDAL @ MUSTAYAN S/O- TAYUB ALI @ TAYUK MANDAL @ HANIFA, PRESENTLY R/O- VILLGHORAMARI BORAGAON, P.S- CHARIDUAR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.

¶8

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶10

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶11

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SONITPUR ASSAM

¶12

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SONITPUR ASSAM

¶13

5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

¶14

NEW DELHI TO BE REP BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA

¶15

6:THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NRC ASSAM

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

BHANGAGARH LACHIT NAGAR GUWAHAT

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K M MAHANTA

¶19

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

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 02-05-2018

¶24

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

¶25

Heard Mr. KM Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J Payeng, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal (FT).

¶26

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 05.09.2017, passed by the Foreigners Tribunal-7, Tezpur at Balipara in Case No. FTDC 1203/2016 (State Vs. Md. Mustafa @ Mustafa Mondal @Mustayan), declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971.

¶27

A perusal of the order dated 05.09.2017 would go to show that petitioner had received notice whereafter, he had appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement. However, when the turn for adducing evidence came, he stopped appearing and did not adduce any evidence.

¶28

When the writ petition was moved on 04.04.2018, in response to a query made by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner had taken us to paragraph 4 of the writ petition to contend that after filing written statement, petitioner had gone to West Kameng district in the State of Arunachal Pradesh where he worked as a tailor. Not satisfied with the explanation given as above, petitioner was directed to file additional-affidavit which he has since filed and contents of which have been perused.

¶29

Page No.# 3/3

¶30

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we feel that it would be in the interest of justice if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence, more so when he has filed the written statement.

¶31

In such circumstances, we set aside the order dated 05.09.2017.

¶32

At this stage, it has been brought to our notice that petitioner has since been taken into custody.

¶33

Superintendent of Police (Border), Sonitpur shall produce the petitioner before the Foreigners Tribunal-7, Tezpur at Balipara in connection with Case No.FTDC 1203/2016 (State Vs. Md. Mustafa @ Mustafa Mondal @Mustayan) on 23.05.2018 at 10.30 am whereafter, Tribunal shall proceed with the reference from the stage of adducing evidence by the petitioner and conclude the same within a period of 60 days from the date of production.

¶34

Before parting with the record, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merit.

¶35

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶36

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

¶37

Copy of this order be furnished to learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and State Coordinator, NRC.

¶38

JUDGE JUDGE

¶39

Biplab

¶40

Comparing Assistant

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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.

Musstt Rahima Khatun Vs the Union of India

Sharifa Khatun @ Sarifa Bibi Vs the State of Assam

Raju Uddin Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.