Allowed

Guljan Bibi @ Gule Khatun @ Pule Khatun and 4 Ors. v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 May 2018WP(C)/2886/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed the petitioner's prayer for a second opportunity to adduce documentary evidence before the Foreigners' Tribunal due to the death of a petitioner's husband. The court set aside the Tribunal's impugned order and directed the Tribunal to conclude proceedings within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for grant of one more opportunity to adduce documentary evidence allowed. Order dated 29.11.2017 set aside. Petitioners directed to appear with documents.

Guljan Bibi @ Gule Khatun @ Pule… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010092002018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 2886/2018

¶5

1:GULJAN BIBI @ GULE KHATUN @ PULE KHATUN AND 4 ORS. W/O LT. AHAMMAD ULLAH D/O LT. SANGSER ALI , VILL- SALMARA BORIGAON, P.S. DHING DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM PIN - 782123

¶6

2: SIDDIK ALI @ A. SIDDIK @ ABU BAKKAR SIDDIK@ ABDUL BAKKAR SIDDIQUE S/O LT. AHAMMAD ULLAH VILL- SARUCHALA P.S. MOIRABARI DIST.MORIGAON ASSAM

¶7

PIN - 782126.

¶8

3: MUSSTT. TARA BANU W/O SIDDIK ALI @ A. SIDDIK @ ABU BAKKAR SIDDIK @ ABDUL BAKKAR SIDDIQUE D/O AFSAR ALI VILL- 1 NO. MAZGAON P.S. DALGAON DIST. DARRANG ASSAM

¶9

4: MD. AZHAR UDDIN @ AJAHAR ALI

¶10

S/O SIDDIK ALI @ A. SIDDIK @ ABU BAKKAR SIDDIK@ ABDUL BAKKAR SIDDIQUE VILL- SARUCHALA P.S. MOIRABARI DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN - 782126.

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

5: MISS. RABIA @ MISS. RABIA KHATUN

¶13

D/O SIDDIK ALI @ A. SIDDIK @ ABU BAKKAR SIDDIK@ ABDUL BAKKAR SIDDIQUE VILL- SARUCHALA P.S. MOIRABARI DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN - 782126

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.

¶16

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, HOME DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-1, INDIA.

¶17

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶18

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

¶19

DISPUR

¶20

GUWAHATI -6.

¶21

3:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-5 ASSAM

¶22

4:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA TO BE REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD

¶23

DELHI- 110001.

¶24

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSA

¶27

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR E AHMED

¶28

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

¶29

BEFORE

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Date : 11-05-2018

¶33

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J.)

¶34

Heard Mr. Z Hammad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J Payeng, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT).

¶35

Five petitioners have joined together and have instituted the present common proceeding.

¶36

Petitioner No.1 is the mother whereas petitioner No.2 is the son. Petitioner No.3 is the wife of petitioner No.2 while petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are the son and daughter of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.

¶37

Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal -5^th , Morigaon, in Case No. F.T. ( C) 199/2016 (New Number) (State –vs- Md. Ahmod Ullah & Ors ) declaring the proceedees to be foreigners who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971.

¶38

A perusal of the order dated 29.11.2017 would go to show that after receipt of notice, the proceedees had appeared before Tribunal and filed written statement. Be it stated that proceedee No.1 Md. Ahmod Ullah was the husband of petitioner No.1 and the remaining proceedees are the present petitioners. It is seen that after the proceedees had filed written statement they did not adduce documentary evidence. It was submitted that proceedee No.1

¶39

Page No.# 4/5

¶40

Ahmod Ullah i.e. husband of petitioner No.1 had expired. However, the proceedees had made oral deposition before the Tribunal. Tribunal passed the order 29.11.2017 answering the reference in favour of the State in the above manner.

¶41

Before us, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the death of the husband of petitioner No.1, petitioners were not in the position to adduce documentary evidence. He therefore prays for grant of one more opportunity to the petitioners to adduce documentary evidence.

¶42

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

¶43

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we allow the prayer made by the petitioners. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 29.11.2017 and direct the petitioners to appear before the Foreigners’ Tribunal -5^th , Morigaon, in connection with Case No. F.T. ( C) 199/2016 along with the documents which they intend to exhibit before the Tribunal.

¶44

Needless to say, mere filing of documents or marking of documents as exhibits is not enough, the documents as well as the contents would have to be proved in accordance with law.

¶45

Accordingly, the petitioners shall appear before the Tribunal along with documentary evidence on 04.06.2018 at 10.30 am whereafter Tribunal shall proceed with the reference in accordance with law and conclude the same within a period of 60 days from the date of production.

¶46

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶47

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

¶48

A copy of this order may be furnished to learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and the State Coordinator, NRC.

¶49

JUDGE JUDGE

¶50

Page No.# 5/5

¶51

Comparing Assistant

Guljan Bibi @ Gule Khatun @ Pule Khatun and 4 Ors. v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guljan Bibi @ Gule Khatun @ Pule Khatun and 4 Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti. Bela Rani Devi @ Debnath Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Kitabuddin Vs State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Md. Babul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Tapsir Ali Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Tapon Das Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Abdul Samad @ Abdus Samad @ Md. Samad Uddin Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.