Allowed

Hujura Begum v. the Union of India

Gauhati HC7 Feb 2018WP(C)/225/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition seeks to quash an ex-parte order declaring the petitioner a foreigner. While the court found the petitioner's explanation for absence and delay inadequate based on a Full Bench decision, it granted a final chance to appear and adduce evidence, setting aside previous adverse orders.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 18.07.2014 and 30.06.2017 set aside; petitioner directed to appear before Foreigners Tribunal on 05.03.2018 for adducing evidence.

Hujura Begum Vs the Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010008742018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 225/2018

¶5

1:HUJURA BEGUM

¶6

W/O- SAMAR ALI, R/O- VILL- NO.1 AND 2 BARUAHJHAR, P.O AND P.SDALGAON, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE UNION OF INDIA

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI- 01

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶11

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR

¶12

GUWAHATI- 06

¶13

3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI- 01 INDIA

¶14

4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NRC ASSAM

¶15

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DARRANG MANGALDOI DIST- DARRANG ASSAM

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B) DARRANG DIST- DARRANG ASSA

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALI

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, FT

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

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

¶22

07.02.2018

¶23

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J)

¶24

Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H. K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam and Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the Central Govt.

¶25

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal (3^rd ), Darrang at Mangaldai in FT (3) Case No. 5101/2012 (State Vs Musstt. Hujura Begum) declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner from the specified territory of post 25.03.1971 stream.

¶26

Be it stated that the order dated 18.07.2014 was passed ex-parte for failure of the petitioner to adduce evidence and remaining absent from the Tribunal.

¶27

Application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2017 by taking the view that no sufficient cause was shown either for setting aside ex-parte order or for condoning the delay.

¶28

It may be mentioned that following creation of additional Tribunals, case record of the reference has been transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal (5^th ), Darrang at Mangaldai whereafter the reference was re-registered as Case No. FT (V) 2690/2016.

¶29

When the writ petition was moved on 19.01.2018, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to file an additional affidavit to explain the default before the Tribunal and delay

¶30

Page No.# 3/4

¶31

in approaching the Court.

¶32

Petitioner has filed an additional affidavit.

¶33

On going through the materials on record, we find that petitioner had filed written statement before the Tribunal on 04.09.2013 whereafter the reference was fixed for adducing evidence. Since that date till 18.04.2017 when the impugned order was passed, petitioner remained absent without steps, despite last chance granted on 06.02.2014.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the written statement, husband of the petitioner had gone to Karnataka to earn his livelihood as a daily labour. Petitioner had fallen ill for almost 1 year for which she was under treatment at Baruajhar State Dispensary, Darrang in connection with which a medical certificate dated 12.10.2016 has been annexed to the writ petition.

¶35

Learned State Counsel submits that there is no error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal as petitioner had failed to explain his default before the Tribunal. Besides, there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court.

¶36

Submissions made have been considered. Also perused the materials on record.

¶37

While the explanation furnished by the petitioner for her default and delay are inadequate having regard to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mondal , reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809 , yet we feel that it would be in the interest of justice to grant one last chance to the petitioner to adduce evidence since she had filed her written statement.

¶38

That being the position, we set aside the orders dated 18.07.2014 and 30.06.2017 and direct the petitioner to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal 5^th , Darrang at Mangaldai in connection with Case No. FT (V) 2690/2016 on 05.03.2018 at 10:30 a.m. whereafter Tribunal shall proceed with the reference in accordance with law from the stage of adducing evidence and conclude the same within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of appearance.

¶39

Needless to say, if there is any default on the part of the petitioner henceforth, Tribunal would be at liberty to pass such order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper. Before parting with the record, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.

¶40

Page No.# 4/4

¶41

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

Registry to inform the concerned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police (B) for doing the needful.

¶43

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

¶44

JUDGE JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Hujura Begum v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hujura Begum 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

Smti. Shipra Dey Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Howah Khatun @ Howa Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Dharani Das Vs the Union of India

Surendra Devnath Vs the Union of India

Jiten Chandra Dey Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Anowar Hussain Vs the Union of India