Allowed

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

Gauhati HC4 Apr 2018WP(C)/3700/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the quashing order by the Foreigners Tribunal declaring her a foreigner. Despite delay and controversy over service of notice, the High Court granted one more opportunity to contest the reference on merit and quashed the earlier ex-parte orders, directing her appearance before the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Set aside orders dated 28.01.2016 and 24.09.2007; directed appearance before Foreigners Tribunal by 26.04.2018 with written statement and conclusion within 60 days.

Musstt. Nazma Begum @ Nazma Khatun Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010205012016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 3700/2016

¶5

1:MUSSTT. NAZMA BEGUM @ NAZMA KHATUN W/O ABDUL MANNAN, VILL. HAILARPAR, P.O. JAGANATHI, P.S. and DISTKARIMGANJ, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS

¶8

REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1

¶9

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

¶10

3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARIMGANJ DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM

¶11

4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSA

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.H R CHOUDHURY

¶13

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

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

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

ORDER

04.04.2018

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J)

Heard Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Kalita, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal (FT).

¶20

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 24.09.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal-II, Karimganj in F.T. Case No. 253/2006 ( State Vs Nazma Begum) declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) in 1991.

¶21

This court by order dated 23.06.2016 had issued notice while requisitioning the case record and passed an interim order to the effect that petitioner should be allowed to remain on bail subject to her appearance before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Karimganj and furnishing of adequate surety.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not receive notice issued by the Tribunal and, therefore, she was unaware of the proceeding before the Tribunal as well as about the impugned order dated 24.09.2007. It was only when the police started looking for her and made inquiries, then she came to know about the impugned order. It was then that petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order but the same was rejected by the Foreigners Tribunal-1, Karimganj vide order dated 28.01.2016.

¶23

Learned Special Counsel, however, submits that notice was served upon the petitioner but she did not respond to such notice. Tribunal could not have waited for an indefinite period for the petitioner to contest the reference. That apart, there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court which would disentitle the petitioner from any equitable relief from the Court.

¶24

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record, including the record requisitioned from the Tribunal.

¶25

We find from the record that there is a right hand thumb impression in the notice issued to the petitioner by the Tribunal. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it was not the thumb impression of the petitioner. In the order dated 28.01.2016 whereby Tribunal rejected the application for setting aside the ex-parte order, it is seen that Tribunal had compared the right

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

hand thumb impression in the notice as well as in the application for setting aside the ex-parte order whereafter a view was taken that the thumb impression belonged to one and the same person, i.e, the petitioner.

¶28

Be that as it may, without entering into this controversy, 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 notwithstanding the long efflux of time in the meanwhile.

¶29

Consequently, we set aside the orders dated 28.01.2016 and 24.09.2007 and direct the petitioner to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal-1, Karimganj in connection with F.T. Case No. 253/2006 along with her written statement on 26.04.2018 at 10.30 a.m. 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 appearance.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Copy of this order shall be furnished to learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and State Co-ordinator, NRC.

¶34

JUDGE JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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