Allowed

Nirodh Das v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 May 2018WP(C)/3933/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an ex-parte order declaring him a foreigner entered illegally from Bangladesh after 1971. The High Court quashed the order to grant the petitioner a final opportunity to contest the case on merits, disregarding his prior defaults.

What did the court decide?

Ex-parte order dated 09.01.2013 set aside; Petitioner directed to appear before Foreigners Tribunal on 29.05.2018 for final conclusion within 60 days.

Nirodh Das Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010029002017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 3933/2017

¶5

1:NIRODH DAS

¶6

S/O. LT. BIPRACHARAN DAS, R/O. VILL. RENG BENG, P.O. RENG BENG, P.S. KAMPUR, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 8 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶11

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶12

3:FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL NO. 1 NAGAON REP. BY ITS MEMBER DIST. NAGAON ASSAM.

¶13

4:FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL NO. 9 NAGAON REP. BY ITS MEMBER DIST. NAGAON ASSAM.

¶14

5:THE STATE OF TRIPURA

¶15

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF TRIPURA HOME and POLITICAL DEPTT. AGARTALA.

¶16

6:ELECTORIAL REGISTRATION OFFICER

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

KHOWAI WEST TRIPURA TRIPURA.

¶19

7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B0RDER NAGAON ASSAM. 8:OFFICER-IN-CHARGE KAMPUR POLICE STATION P.O. KAMPUR DIST. NAGAON ASSAM.

¶20

9:ELECTORIAL REGISTRATION OFFICER NAGAON ASSAM

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P SAHARIA

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶23

BEFORE

¶24

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

¶25

07.05.2018 O R D E R

¶26

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J.)

¶27

Heard Ms. P. Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Kalita, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners’ Tribunal, (FT).

¶28

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 09.01.2013 passed by the then Foreigner’s Tribunal, Nagaon in F.T. Case No. 5016/2012 (State Vs. Nirodh Das) declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.3.1971.

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

A perusal of the order dated 09.01.2013 would go to show that notice issued by the Foreigners’ Tribunal was duly served upon the petitioner, whereafter, the petitioner had appeared before the Tribunal and sought for adjournment to file written statement but thereafter, the petitioner stopped appearing before the Tribunal. Consequently, no written statement was filed.

¶31

In such circumstances, Tribunal decided to proceed ex-parte, whereafter, the order dated 09.01.2013 was passed in favour of the State in the above manner.

¶32

Application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 7/2017, was dismissed by the Tribunal on 04.04.2017.

¶33

Be it stated that after creation of additional Tribunals, the case record of the related reference was transferred to the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 9^th Nagaon.

¶34

Though, we do not approve at all the conduct of the petitioner, yet in view of identical orders passed by this Bench in similar matters relating to ex-parte orders, we feel that it would be in the interest of justice, if one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to contest the reference on merit, notwithstanding his default and delay. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2013.

¶35

Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon shall produce the petitioner from detention before the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 9, Nagaon in connection with F.T. Case No. 5016/2012 on 29.05.2018 at 10.30. am whereafter, Tribunal shall proceed with the reference in accordance with law and conclude the same within a period of 60 days from the date of appearance.

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

Needless to say, we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.

¶38

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

JUDGE JUDGE

¶42

B.Dey

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Nirodh Das v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirodh Das v. the Union of India and 8 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

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

Saitanya Das Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

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

Mani Begum Vs State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Gautam Aich Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Halima Khatoon Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.