Dismissed

Sudhan Bowmik v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Feb 2018WP(C)/422/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Gauhati High Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the Foreigners' Tribunal order accepting the Stream 1966-1971 status. The Court held that after the ten-year disenfranchisement period expired on 01.08.2015, the petitioner is entitled to full citizenship rights and privileges.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition was disposed of without quashing the Tribunal order, holding the petitioner entitled to full citizenship rights from 01.08.2015.

Sudhan Bowmik Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010121112017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 422/2017

¶5

SUDHAN BOWMIK

¶6

S/O GOPAL CH. BHOWMIK, R/O NOZ KATHIATOLI, P.O. JAMARMUR, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN - 782427.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP.B Y THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI -6 ASSAM.

¶11

3:THE FOREIGNER'S REGISTRATION OFFICER IN THE DIST. OF NAGAON ASSAM.

¶12

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BORDER IN THE DIST. OF NAGAON ASSAM.

¶13

5:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE KAMPUR POLICE STATION DIST.NAGAON A SSAM PIN-782001. 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGOAN DISTRICT PIN - 782001

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. M D CHOUDHURY

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 08-02-2018 (Ujjal Bhuyan, J)

¶21

Heard Ms. M. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Sri Sudhan Bhowmik, and Mr. H. K. Hazarika, learned. Govt. Advocate, Assam for the respondents.

¶22

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 07.10.2015 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal 9^th , Nagaon in FT Case No. 283/2015 (State of Assam Vs Sudhan Bhowmik) declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had entered into India (Assam) in an unauthorized manner from the specified territory during the period from 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971.

¶23

This Court by order dated 31.01.2017 had issued notice while requisitioning the case record.

¶24

We find from the record that at an earlier point of time, reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon with the allegation that petitioner and 13 of his family members were suspected to be illegal foreigners from the specified territory belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream. The said reference was registered as FT Case No. 2526/1988 (State Vs Sri Gopal Ch. Bhowmik and 13 Ors.) before the then Foreigners’ Tribunal, Nagaon. Since the proceedees, including the petitioner, did not respond to the notice issued by the Tribunal, ex-parte order was passed on 20.07.1999 declaring the proceedees, including the petitioner, to be foreigners belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream. They were directed to get their names registered within 60 (sixty) days.

¶25

It is seen that belatedly petitioner got himself registered as a foreigner belonging to

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream before the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Nagaon on 01.08.2005, bearing Registration No.R-5463.

¶28

While the matter rested thus, a fresh reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon suspecting the petitioner to be an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream. This was registered as FT Case No. 283/2015 before the Foreigners Tribunal 9^th , Nagaon. This time the reference was contested by the petitioner and it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that she was earlier declared to be foreigner of 1966-1971 stream following which he had got himself registered as a foreigner of that stream. Tribunal therefore answered the reference vide order dated 07.10.2015 stating that since petitioner was declared to be a foreigner belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream, whereafter petitioner had already got himself registered though belatedly, question of declaring the petitioner as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream would not arise.

¶29

We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. Though the order dated 20.07.1999 was passed ex-parte, adjudicating the correctness or otherwise of the same at this distant point of time, that too, after the said order has been complied with by the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. As a matter of fact, Tribunal by the impugned order dated 07.10.2015 did not agree with the contention of the State that petitioner was a post 25.03.1971 stream foreigner and reaffirmed the earlier order dated 20.07.1999. Therefore, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 07.10.2015.

¶30

Before parting with the record, we find that petitioner had already got himself registered as a foreigner belonging to the 1966-1971 stream on 01.08.2005 bearing Registration No. R-5463. Section 6 A (3) and (4) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 , as amended, provides that a person who is declared to be a foreigner belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream by a competent Foreigners Tribunal, upon registration, would be disenfranchised for a period of 10 years though he would be entitled to all the other rights and privileges as a citizen of India. After expiry of the period of 10 years, even the voting right would be restored to him.

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

In the instant case, petitioner had got himself registered as a foreigner belonging to the aforesaid stream on 01.08.2005 and the period of 10 years had expired on 01.08.2015. That being the position, petitioner would be entitled to all the rights and privileges as a citizen of India in terms of Section 6 A (3) and (4) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 , as amended, w.e.f. 01.08.2015.

¶33

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

JUDGE JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Sudhan Bowmik v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhan Bowmik v. the Union of India and 4 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

Surendra Devnath Vs the Union of India

Hujura Begum Vs the Union of India

Jiten Chandra Dey Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Kulsum Bibi @ Mustt. Kulsom Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Drishti Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Meenu Bala Arjya Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.