Partly allowed

Musstt. Khudeja Begum v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Apr 2018WP(C)/1933/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought quashing of a Foreigners Tribunal order declaring the petitioner a foreigner. Due to a communication gap causing default, the High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for the petitioner to appear and adduce evidence before the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 28.07.2017; remand the case to the Foreigners Tribunal for the petitioner to appear and adduce evidence by affidavit.

Musstt. Khudeja Begum Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010063052018

¶3

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

¶4

¶5

1:MUSSTT. KHUDEJA BEGUM W/O- MD. JAHUR UDDIN@ JAHIRUL ISLAM, R/O- VILL- UTTAR UDMARI, P.S. DABAKA, DIST- HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782440

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.

¶8

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6

¶10

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSAM

¶11

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) HOJAI P.O. P.S. AND DIST- HOJAI ASSAM

¶12

5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI

¶13

6:THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZEN REP. BY THE STATE COORDINATOR ASYUT PLAZA

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

BHANGAGARH GHY-5 DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM.

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J C GOGOI

¶17

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

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 04-04-2018

¶22

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J.)

¶23

Heard Mr. J. C. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Kalita, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal (FT).

¶24

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon Court No. 10^th at Sankardev Nagar, Hojai in FT(D) Case No. 1048/2015 (State Vs Msstt. Khudeja Begum) declaring her to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971.

¶25

A perusal of order dated 28.07.2017 would go to show that notice issued by the Tribunal was served upon the petitioner whereafter petitioner had entered appearance along with her counsel and filed written statement along with copies of some documents. But when the turn for evidence came, petitioner defaulted in her appearance before the Tribunal. Tribunal noted that almost 55 days were granted to the petitioner for adducing evidence but petitioner failed to adduce evidence. In such circumstances, Tribunal decided to proceed with the reference. Since the pleadings in the written statement were not proved, Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the State in the above manner vide the impugned order dated 28.07.2017.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a communication gap

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

between the petitioner and her lawyer that resulted in her default before the Tribunal.

¶29

Learned Special Counsel however supports the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence, more so because petitioner has filed her written statement.

¶31

That being the position, we set aside the order dated 28.07.2017 and direct the petitioner to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon Court No. 10^th at Sankardev Nagar, Hojai in connection with FT(D) Case No. 1048/2015 along with her evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit on 26.04.2018 at 10.30 am whereafter Tribunal shall proceed with the reference in accordance with law from the stage of adducing evidence by the petitioner and conclude the same within a period of 60 days from the date of such appearance.

¶32

Needless to say, if there is any default on the part of the petitioner henceforth, Tribunal would be at liberty to pass appropriate order that may be deemed fit and proper.

¶33

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

¶34

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

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

¶36

Copies of this order may also be furnished to learned Standing Counsel, Election of India and State Coordinator, NRC, Assam.

¶37

JUDGE JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Musstt. Khudeja Begum v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musstt. Khudeja Begum 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

Shyamlal Namasudra Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Momina Bibi Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Jainaluddin Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Alo Rani Dev @ Alo Rani Dey Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Smti. Dipika Saha Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Musstt. Nazma Begum @ Nazma Khatun Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.