In a writ petition challenging the Foreigners Tribunal's rejection of an application to adduce additional evidence, the High Court dismissed the plea, holding the petitioner was not entitled to fresh evidence at such a late stage despite the case being reopened.
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
GAHC010085352019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 2628/2019
1:MD. ASAN ALI
S/O LATE IMAN ALI @ INAM ALI, R/O VILL-AHATA, P.S.-MUKALMUA, DIST-NALBARI, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI-1
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) NALBARI P.O. AND P.S.-NALBARI DIST-NALBARI ASSAM
4:THE ELECTION OFFICER NALBARI P.O. AND P.S.-NALBARI DIST-NALBARI ASSAM
5:THE CHIEF CO-ORDINATOR
Page No.# 2/4
NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZEN (NRC) ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 DIST.-KAMUP(M)
6:THE ELECTION COMMISSION THE STATE OF ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALI
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
O R D E R
13.05.2019
(Manojit Bhuyan, J)
Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel represents respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. Ms. B. Das, learned counsel appears for respondent nos.5 and 6. None appears for respondent no.1.
Petitioner assails order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal No.2, Nalbari in F.T. Case No.16/2016 whereby the prayer made in Petition No.195/2019 for adducing additional evidences of the Headmaster of Kalarchar M.E. Madrassa and village Headman of Naptipara village was rejected.
To trace the brief facts, the aforesaid F.T. Case No.16/2016 was also a subject matter in WP(C) (Suo-Moto) 22/2017, which was so registered on the basis of letters issued by the Member (In-charge), Foreigners’ Tribunal No.II, Nalbari addressed to the Principal Secretary, Home and Political (B) Department, Government of Assam, with copy marked to the Registrar (Judicial), Gauhati High Court, which disclosed that the earlier
Page No.# 3/4
Member of Foreigners’ Tribunal No.II, Nalbari had disposed of references declaring the proceedees as not foreigners without such opinions either not carrying the signature of the Member or such opinions not being available in the case records or detailed orders not being available. By judgment and order dated 19.06.2018 the said suo-moto case was disposed of by holding that in all the 84 (eighty four) references, which were the subject matter in the said suo-moto case, the “orders of disposal” would be treated as non est in the eye of law. Direction was made that all the 84 references would now be heard afresh from their respective stages. The Foreigners’ Tribunal No.II, Nalbari was directed to list the said 84 references in the Notice Board of the Tribunal by giving fresh date and that fresh notices may also be issued to the proceedees. It is in this context that the Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner to appear for hearing of the reference case in question.
On receipt of the said notice, so issued in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 19.06.2018, the petitioner filed Petition No. 195/2019 seeking liberty/opportunity to adduce additional evidences. As observed above, the said petition was rejected vide the impugned order dated 08.03.2019. The Tribunal recorded that the petitioner had ample opportunity to adduce additional evidences before the case reached the argument stage, which opportunity was not availed. Further, no cogent reason has been shown as to the necessity for adducing additional evidences at such belated stage.
On the above we are in agreement with the order passed by the Tribunal. Notwithstanding the fact that the reference case is stated to be at the argument stage, the petitioner cannot be allowed to adduce additional evidences, having regard to the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid suo-moto case. On perusal of the judgment and order dated 19.06.2018, it is clearly seen that at paragraph 14 thereof this Court made clear direction that the 84 references shall be heard afresh from their respective stages (emphasis supplied). In the said judgment and order there is no direction giving liberty or opportunity to file additional written statement and additional evidence.
On similar lines and following the judgment and order of this Court, as above, this Court have rendered orders in WP(C) No.2006/2019; WP(C) No.2156/2019 and WP(C) No.2261/2019 dismissing the writ petitions. We do not intend to take a different view.
Page No.# 4/4
Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands
dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner in a Foreigners Tribunal case is entitled to adduce additional evidence after the Tribunal had rejected a fresh petition for the same.
Whether the direction in WP(C) (Suo-Moto) 22/2017 to hear 84 references afresh from their respective stages precludes allowing additional evidence later in the trial.
Md. Asan Ali
The Union of India
The State of Assam
The Superintendent of Police (B), Nalbari
The Election Officer, Nalbari
The Chief Co-ordinator, NRC Assam
Manojit Bhuyan
Manish Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
