Allowed

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

Gauhati HC4 May 2018WP(C)/6977/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hathazari bench of the Gauhati High Court set aside two Foreigners' Tribunal orders passed ex parte against the petitioner. The court directed the Tribunal to hold a fresh hearing within 60 days to provide the petitioner a last opportunity to contest his deportation on merits before the 2017 cutoff.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 26.03.2013 and 28.04.2014 set aside; fresh hearing before Foreigners' Tribunal to be held by 24.05.2018 and concluded within 60 days.

Md. Abubakkar Siddique Vs the Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010121752016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 6977/2016

¶5

1:MD. ABUBAKKAR SIDDIQUE

¶6

S/O. LT. MASADDAR ALI, VILL. PATIDOIYA, P.S. JAMUNAMUKH, DIST. NAGAON NOW HOJAI, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 6 ORS

¶9

REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, HOME DEPTT., NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY.-06.

¶11

3:ADDL. DIRECTOR GEN. OF POLICE ASSAM BORDER BHANGAGARH GHY.-05.

¶12

4:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM.

¶13

5:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HOJAI SHANKARDEVNAGAR ASSAM.

¶14

6:SUPDT. OF POLIE B NAGAON ASSAM.

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

7:SUPDT. OF POLICE B HOJAI ASSAM

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N H MAZARBHUYAN

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Date : 04-05-2018

¶23

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J.)

¶24

Heard Mr. NH Mazarbhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases and Mr. J Payeng, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT).

¶25

Md. Abu Bakkar Siddique is the petitioner in both the cases.

¶26

In WP ( C) No. 6977 of 2016, he has assailed the legality and correctness of the order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar in Case No.FT/H/104/2011 (State –vs- Md. Abu Bakkar Siddique) declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971.

¶27

In WP (C) No.7039 of 2016, petitioner has assailed the legality and correctness of the order dated 28.04.2014 passed by the same Tribunal i.e. the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar in Case No.FT/H/3680/2012 (State –vs- Md. Abu Bakkar Siddique) declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971.

¶28

In WP ( C) No. 6977 of 2016, notice was issued on 22.11.2016 whereas in WP (C) No.7039 of 2016, notice was issued on 24.11.2016.

¶29

We have perused both the orders of the Tribunal dated 26.03.2013 and 28.04.2014.

¶30

Page No.# 3/4

¶31

On going through both the orders, we find that notice issued by the Tribunal was served upon the petitioner but petitioner did not respond to such notice compelling the Tribunal to proceed exparte whereafter opinions were rendered as above.

¶32

Mr. NH Mazarbhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not receive notice. On the other hand, Mr. Payeng, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners’ Tribunal submits that record discloses that notice was personally served upon the petitioner. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the finding recorded by the Tribunal.

¶33

While we generally agree with the submission made by Mr. Payeng, learned Special Counsel, we however feel that despite the conduct of the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice if one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to contest both the references on merit.

¶34

Accordingly, we set aside the orders dated 26.03.2013 and 28.04.2014. Petitioner shall now appear before the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar in connection with Case No.FT/H/104/2011 and Case No.FT/H/3680/2012 along with his written statement on 24.05.2018 at 10.30 am whereafter Tribunal shall proceed with the two references together and conclude the same within a period of 60 days from the date of appearance.

¶35

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

JUDGE JUDGE

¶39

Page No.# 4/4

¶40

Comparing Assistant

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Abubakkar Siddique 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khuki Bibi @ Khuky Bibi Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Ms. Safia Begum Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Ms. Kadbanu Begum @ Kadbanu Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

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.