The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a Foreigners Tribunal order declaring the petitioner a foreigner. The Court held that the petitioner's repeated absence and lack of explanation for the delay warranted dismissal.
Petitioner's writ petition is dismissed as the default and delay were unexplained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010060992017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 8175/2017
1:ROHIMA KHATUN @ ROHIMA BEGUM
W/O. AMJAD ALI, VILL.- KATHALBARI, FAKIR PARA, P.S. MATIA, P.O. SESAPANI, DIST. GOALPARA, PIN-783125 PRESENT ADDRESS. ROHIMA KHATOON, W/O. AMJAD ALI, VILL. DAROGAR ALGA, P.S. MORNOI, P.O. DUBAPARA, DIST. GOALPARA, PIN-783125.
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, NEW DELHI-1.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HOME DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOALPARA.
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BORDER GOALPARA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A ROSHID
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ECI
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
05-02-2018
(UJJAL BHUYAN,J)
Heard Mr. A. Rashid, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. U. Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam.
Page No.# 3/4
manage his documents. This is no ground at all to seek adjournments. The reference was preceded by an enquiry where the petitioner was confronted about her citizenship status. So petitioner knew that her citizenship status was being suspected. Since she failed to satisfy the enquiring authority about her citizenship status by producing relevant documents, the reference was made. In the reference, petitioner could not “manage” her documents despite thirteen dates being granted which only indicates that petitioner did not have the documents to prove that she was a citizen of India.
9. Secondly, petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 03-01-2012 after an inordinate delay of about 6 years. It is not a case of non-service of notice. Petitioner was fully aware of the proceeding before Tribunal as she had appeared and was represented by an engaged Counsel. Therefore, such un-explained delay in approaching the Court cannot be accepted.
Page No.# 4/4
15.12.2017.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition can be entertained despite the petitioner's repeated default in adducing evidence before the Tribunal.
Whether the inordinate delay of six years in approaching this Court after an unexplained default justifies dismissing the petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State -Vs- Moslem MondalExplained¶28
State -Vs- Moslem Mondal reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809
2 provisions across 2 enactments
ROHIMA KHATUN @ ROHIMA BEGUM
THE UNION OF INDIA
THE STATE OF ASSAM
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOALPARA
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BORDER GOALPARA
UJJAL BHUYAN
NELSON SAILO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
