Allowed

Md. Abdul Nasser and Anr. v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Jun 2018WP(C)/7097/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by two residents challenging their inclusion in the NRC's declared-foreigners list despite prior Foreigners Tribunal orders deeming them not foreigners. Court directed deletion of names and restoration of benefits, reserving opinion on merit of Tribunal orders.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to delete petitioners' names from list of declared-foreigners and enable entitlement to government benefits.

Md. Abdul Nasser and Anr. Vs the Union… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010030972016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 7097/2016

¶5

1:MD. ABDUL NASSER and ANR.

¶6

S/O. LT. CHAND MIA, VILL. HAIDUBI, P.S. BATADRABA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

2: SAMSUDDIN

¶8

S/O. JAINAL @ JAINALUDDIN VILL. HAIDUBI P.S. BATADRABA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS

¶11

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

¶12

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶13

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

¶14

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON.

¶15

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICEB NAGAON ASSAM.

¶16

5:DEPUTY DIRECTOR

¶17

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

¶18

Page No.# 2/5

¶19

GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S B RAHMAN

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.R-1

¶22

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 04-06-2018

¶25

( Ujjal Bhuyan, J.)

¶26

Heard Mr SB Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr

¶27

UK Nair, learned Senior Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal(FT) .

¶28

(2) Two petitioners have joined together and have instituted the present common proceeding seeking a direction to the respondents to delete their names from the list of declared-foreigners.

¶29

(3) The two petitioners are Md Abdul Nasser, son of late Chand Mia, and Samsuddin, son of Jainal alias Jainaluddin. Both of them are residents of Haidubi village under Batadraba police station in Nagaon district.

¶30

(4) According to the petitioners, FT Case No. 783/2005 was registered against petitioner No.1 before the then Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon. Likewise, FT Case No. 441/2002 was registered against petitioner No.2 before the said

¶31

Page No.# 3/5

¶32

Foreigners Tribunal at Nagaon.

¶33

(5) Insofar FT Case No. 783/2005 is concerned, by order dated 2.6.2011 the Tribunal had rendered the opinion that the proceedee Md Abul Naser was not a foreigner. Similarly, by order dated 18.2.2012 the Tribunal had answered FT Case No. 441/2002 opining that the proceedee Samsuddin was not a foreigner.

¶34

(6) Grievance of the petitioners is that notwithstanding such declaration their names were included in the list of declared-foreigners whereafter the government benefits were withdrawn from them.

¶35

(7) This court by order dated 29.11.2016 had issued notice while requisitioning the case record and passed an interim order to the effect that petitioners should be allowed to remain on bail subject to their appearance before the Superintendent of Police(Border), Nagaon and furnishing of adequate surety.

¶36

(8) An affidavit has been filed by Sri Sanjib Kr Saikia, Addl. Superintendent of Police(HQ), Nagaon. In the said affidavit it is stated that FT Case No. 441/2002 was answered on 8.5.2009 declaring proceedee Samsuddin to be a foreigner. Likewise, FT Case No. 783/2005 was answered on 2.2.2009 declaring proceedee Abdul Naser to be a foreigner.

¶37

(9) Both the orders were passed ex parte . Subsequently, the ex parte orders were recalled whereafter orders dated 2.6.2011 and 18.2.2012 were

¶38

Page No.# 4/5

¶39

passed declaring the proceedees as not foreigners. The subsequent orders were not before the authorities and therefore acting on the previous orders the names of the petitioners were included in the list of declared foreigners.

¶40

(10) In para 12 of the affidavit, it is stated that fresh intimation has been sent to the Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Nagaon on 30.12.2016 for continuation of government benefits to the petitioners after receiving the subsequent orders passed by the Tribunal.

¶41

(11) Both Mr Rahman and Mr Nairhave have gone through the record and submitted that initially FT Case No. 783/2005 was answered ex parte against the proceedee on 2.2.2009 declaring him to be a foreigner. Later, an application for setting aside the ex parte order was passed, on the basis of which order dated 28.1.2010 was passed setting aside the ex parte order. Likewise, FT Case No. 441/2002 was answered ex parte on 8.5.2009 against the proceedee declaring him to be a foreigner. Subsequently, an application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed which was allowed by order dated 14.9.2010. Thereafter, the orders dated 2.6.2011 and 18.2.2012 were passed by the Tribunal opining that the proceedees were not foreigners.

¶42

(12) In the light of the above we, therefore, direct the respondents to delete the names of the petitioners from the list of the declared-foreigners whereafter they would be entitled to the government benefits which they are otherwise entitled to under the law.

¶43

Page No.# 5/5

¶44

(13) Before parting with the record we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the orders passed by the Tribunal.

¶45

(14) Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶46

(15) Registry to send down the LCR to the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon and communicate this order to the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon and Superintendent of Police(Border), Nagaon.

¶47

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

¶48

JUDGE JUDGE

¶49

Na/

¶50

Comparing Assistant

Md. Abdul Nasser and Anr. v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Abdul Nasser and Anr. 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

Debojit Khound Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Marfat Ali Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Musst. Nuraton Nessa @ Nuriton Nessa Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.