Partly allowed

Saitanya Das v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 May 2018WP(C)/2683/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court set aside an ex parte order declaring the petitioner a foreigner passed by the Foreigners' Tribunal after noting lack of service, directing the petitioner's production for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside; petitioner to be produced before the Foreigners' Tribunal for a fresh hearing within 60 days.

Saitanya Das Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010086792018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 2683/2018

¶5

1:SAITANYA DAS

¶6

S/O- LATE JADULAL DAS @ JADURAM DAS, R/O- VILL- MORI BURAHGAON, P..O- MORIGAON, P.S- MORIGAON, PIN- 782105, DISTMORIGAON, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.

¶9

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

¶10

2:THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI- 110001

¶11

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6

¶12

4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007

¶13

5:THE STATE COORDINATOR OFFICE OF THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NRC ASSAM

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA G S ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 781005

¶16

6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM

¶17

7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B) MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSA

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K LAHKAR

¶19

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

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 04-05-2018

¶24

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J)

¶25

Heard Mr K Lahkar, 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 18.01.2013, passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal (2^nd ), Morigaon, FT(D)Case No. 816 of 2011( State –Vs- Saitanya Das), 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 18.01.2013 would go to show that notice issued by the Tribunal was served upon the petitioner, but he did not appear before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, Tribunal decided to proceed ex parte, whereafter, order dated 18.01.2013 was passed answering the reference in favour of the State in the above manner.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not receive any notice from the Tribunal. Therefore, he did not have any knowledge about the proceeding as well as about the impugned order. It was only after he was arrested that he came to know about the impugned order.

¶29

Page No.# 3/3

¶30

Learned Special Counsel, however, submits that contention of the petitioner is not believable as the notice was not personally served upon the petitioner.

¶31

Be that as it may, taking an overall view of the matter, we feel that it would be in the interest of justice if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to contest the reference on merit. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 18.01.2013. Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon, shall produce the petitioner from custody before the Foreigners’ Tribunal (2^nd ), Morigaon, in connection with FT(D)Case No. 816 of 2011, on 24.05.2018, at 10:30 am, whereafter, Tribunal shall proceed with the reference in accordance with law and conclude the same within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of production.

¶32

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

¶33

This disposes of the writ petition.

¶34

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

¶35

A copy of this order may also be furnished to learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and, State Coordinator, National Register of Citizens (NRC), for doing the needful.

¶36

JUDGE JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Saitanya Das v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saitanya Das v. the Union of India and 6 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

Khuki Bibi @ Khuky Bibi Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Ms. Safia Begum Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Ms. Kadbanu Begum @ Kadbanu Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Md. Abubakkar Siddique Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Sandhya Bala Sarkar @ Sandhya Sarkar Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Md. Abubakkar Siddique Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.