Allowed

Rajendra Bhowmik v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Jun 2018WP(C)/3546/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the FRRO's refusal to register a petitioner declared a foreigner of the 1966-1971 stream due to a 7-day delay. Holding the refusal unjustified, the Court directed the FRRO to register the petitioner within the outer 60-day limit.

What did the court decide?

Registrar of Respondent No. 7 (FRRO) to register the petitioner as a foreigner belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream.

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

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010115652018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 3546/2018

¶5

1:RAJENDRA BHOWMIK

¶6

S/O LT. RAMESH CH. BHOWMIK, BY RELIGION- HINDU AND A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- FEURAKHOWA, P.S. SORBHOG, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM- 781317.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE UNION OF INDIA.

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI- 1010001

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI -781006.

¶11

3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

¶12

REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAL SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-1010001

¶13

4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS ASSAM 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA GUWAHATI SHILLONG ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN - 781005. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA PIN - 781301.

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007.

¶16

7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) BARPETA- 781317

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B SARKAR

¶18

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

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 05-06-2018

¶23

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J.)

¶24

Heard Mr. B. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Payeng, learned Special Counsel, FT.

¶25

In the prayer portion of the writ petition, petitioner has challenged legality and correctness of the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta-11^th at Sarbhog in FT Case No.405/2016 (Union of India Vs. Rajendra Bhowmik) declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner from the specified territory belonging to 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream.

¶26

Referring to the alternative prayer made in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would confine the relief sought for only to registration of petitioner as a foreigner belonging to the said stream and not contest the order dated 28.03.2018 on merit. He submits that following the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal, he had approached the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) at Barpeta, who, however, declined to register him on the ground that he had approached the Tribunal 7 days beyond the prescribed period of 30 days.

¶27

Be it stated that a reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border),

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

Barpeta under Section 8(1) of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act) suspecting the petitioner to be an illegal migrant, i.e. a foreigner who had unauthorisedly entered into India after 25.03.1971. The reference was registered as IMDT Case No.2689/2001.

¶30

After the IMDT Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 , the related reference was re-registered under the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and after creation of additional Tribunals was assigned to the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta11^th at Sarbhog (Tribunal) where it was re-registered as FT Case No.405/2016.

¶31

The reference was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement and by adducing evidence.

¶32

After hearing the matter, Tribunal passed the order dated 28.03.2018 answering the reference in favour of the State but in the above manner. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority within 30 days for registration following which his name should be struck off from the electoral rolls for the next 10 years.

¶33

According to the petitioner, he had approached the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta who is the FRRO, Barpeta for registration but there was delay of 7 days, i.e., 7 days beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. Therefore, the said authority declined registration.

¶34

Since legality and correctness of the order dated 28.03.2018 is not an issue, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the said order.

¶35

Under Rule 19 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009, a person who is declared to be a foreigner belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream is required to get himself registered within a period of 30 days. However, the FRRO has the discretion to extend the aforesaid period in an appropriate case up-to 60 days. Application filed by the petitioner though was beyond 30 days was certainly within the outer limit of 60 days. In such circumstances, refusal of the FRRO to register the name of the petitioner as a foreigner belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream on the ground of delay by 7 days is not justified.

¶36

Accordingly, we direct respondent No.7 who is FRRO to register the petitioner as a

¶37

Page No.# 4/4

¶38

foreigner belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream whereafter provisions contained in Sections 6A(3), (4) and (5) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended, would be attracted in the case of the petitioner.

¶39

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

JUDGE JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Rajendra Bhowmik v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Bhowmik 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debojit Khound Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Marfat Ali Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Musst. Nuraton Nessa @ Nuriton Nessa Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Jaynal @ Jainal Abedin Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

Mukesh Mittal, IAS Vs Smt. Sushi Thapa @ Miss Sushi @ Yasmin Begum

Shahjahan Ali Vs the Union of India and 13 Ors.