Allowed

Ganesh Biswas and 2 Ors. v. Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Oct 2018WP(C)/6505/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an ex parte order passed by the Foreigners' Tribunal in Morigaon, Assam, which found accusation against petitioners. The High Court allowed the petition directing parties to file a review petition within 30 days for ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; petitioners directed to file a review petition before the Tribunal with cogent grounds explaining their absence and seeking condonation of delay.

Ganesh Biswas and 2 Ors. Vs Union of India… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010200112018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 6505/2018

¶5

1:GANESH BISWAS AND 2 ORS. S/O LT. HARI BISWAS R/O VILL- MATIPARBAT P.S. JAGIROAD, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM

¶6

2: SMTI. SABITRI BISWAS W/O LT. HARI BISWAS R/O VILL- MATIPARBAT P.S. JAGIROAD DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM 3: SRI NARESH BISWAS S/OLT. HARI BISWAS R/O VILL- MATIPARBAT P.S. JAGIROAD DIST. MORIGAON ASSA

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.

¶9

THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI -06.

¶11

3:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

REP. BY THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER MORIGAON ASSAM 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NRC ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI -5. 5:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (BORDER) BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-5. 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON P.O. AND DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM. 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) P.O. AND DIST. MORIGAON ASSA

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J SARMAH Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶15

-BEFORE-

¶16

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

¶17

01.10.2018

¶18

(Prasanta Kumar Deka, J )

¶19

Heard Mr. J Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. G Sarmah, learned counsel representing respondent no. 1; Mr. A Kalita, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 2, 5, 6 & 7; Ms. N Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Ms. A Verma, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

¶20

In this writ petition order dated 12.08.2013 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal (1^st ), Morigaon, Assam in F.T. Case No. 162/2009 is put under challenge. The Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon referred Police Reference F.T. Case No. 246/2006 to the Tribunal whereafter notices were issued to the petitioners. Amongst the said petitioners, one Ganesh

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

Biswas entered appearance and submitted written representation on behalf of all the opposite parties therein the said proceeding before the Tribunal. Opportunities were given to the petitioners on 02.08.2013, 05.08.2013 and 08.08.2013 but on each date the petitioners took adjournments. Ultimately, the proceeding was fixed for ex parte hearing on 12.08.2013 and the petitioners, more specifically, Sri Ganesh Biswas, Smt. Sabitri Biswas, Sri Paresh Biswas and Sri Naresh Biswas remained absent without any steps. Finding no alternative, the Tribunal passed the impugned order on 12.08.2013 answering the reference against the petitioners named hereinabove.

¶23

Mr. Sarmah submits that the petitioners were unaware about the finality of the said F.T. Case No. 162/2009 and putting the blame on the counsel for non-informing them, the petitioners are before this court for setting aside the said impugned order.

¶24

Mr. Kalita, on the other hand, opposed to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶25

We have considered the submission of learned counsel. It is an admitted position that the petitioners were fully aware of the said proceeding and accordingly entered appearance before the Tribunal. They filed representation supported by documents but they remained absent on the subsequent date(s) and the Tribunal passed the impugned order. There is no error apparent on the face of the order passed by the Tribunal keeping in view the reasons recorded in the order. However, for the ends of justice, we allow this writ petition directing the petitioners to file a review petition before the Tribunal with cogent grounds in support of their reasons for remaining absent before the Tribunal on the date(s) so fixed by it. The Tribunal thereafter within a period of 30 days from the date of appearance of the parties before the Tribunal shall decide the said review application on merit keeping in view the prescribed jurisdiction for reviewing an order. Needless to say that the said review petition shall be accompanied along with a delay condonation petition explaining the delay in not preferring the said review application within the stipulated period of 30 days as per Order 3A of the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964. This writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

¶26

JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Ganesh Biswas and 2 Ors. v. Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Biswas and 2 Ors. v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Bablu Biswas Vs the Union of India and 9 Ors.

Supereti Bala Das @ Sukrati Das and 6 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Smti. Kanan Bala Barmani Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Ismail Ali Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Nepal Das and 3 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Polu Ali @ Palu Sheikh Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.