The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of petitions for filing additional written statement and evidence in a Foreigners Tribunal case. The Court held that hearing 84 references afresh from respective stages did not grant liberty for additional filings.
Petition dismissed without any order as to cost.
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.# 1/3
GAHC010069582019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 2743/2019
1:AKABBAR ALI @ AKABBAR ALI @ AKABBAR S/O LT. IBRAHI @ IBRA @ IBRA PARAMANIK, VILL. HOWLIGHAT, P.O. AND P.S.- MUKALMUA, DIST.-NALBARI, PIN-781126
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPTT. OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001
2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION GOVT. OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-110001
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF HOME AFFAIRS
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITIAL (B) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781335
Page No.# 2/3
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781335
7:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION (NRC) ASSAM BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-78100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B BANERJEE
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
O R D E R
11.11.2019
( Manojit Bhuyan, J )
Heard Mr. A. Mobareque, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. G. Hazarika, learned counsel representing respondent no.1. Ms. B. Das, learned counsel represents respondent no.2 whereas Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel represents respondent nos.3, 4, 5 and 6. Ms. U. Das, learned counsel appears for respondent no.7.
Petitioner assails order dated 14.02.2019 and 08.03.2019 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal No.2, Nalbari in F.T.(Nal-2) Case No.54/2016 whereby the prayer made in Petition Nos.109/2019 and 192/2019 for filing additional written statement and additional evidence were rejected.
To trace the brief facts, the aforesaid F.T.(Nal-2) Case No.54/2016 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 (Incharge), 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 Member of Foreigners’ Tribunal No.II, Nalbari had disposed of references declaring the proceedees as not foreigners without such opinions either not carrying the
Page No.# 3/3
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 suomoto 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. 109/2019 seeking liberty/opportunity for filing additional written statement and to adduce additional evidences. As observed above, the said petition was rejected vide the impugned order dated 14.02.2019. The Tribunal recorded that the petitioner had ample opportunity to file additional written statement and additional evidence before the case reached the argument stage, which opportunity was not availed. Further, no cogent reason has been shown as to the necessity for filing additional written statement and additional evidences at such belated stage. Once again the petitioner had filed Petition No.192/2019 with prayer for filing additional written statement and additional evidence, which also stood rejected vide order dated 08.03.2019.
On the above we are in agreement with the orders 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 file additional written statement or to adduce additional evidence, 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.
For all the reasons above, 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 can be allowed to file additional written statement and additional evidence in a Foreigners Tribunal case at the argument stage.
Whether the revision of 84 references from their respective stages implies liberty to file additional evidence.
Akabbar Ali @ Akabbar Ali @ Akabbar S/o Lt. Ibrahi @ Ibra @ Ibra Paramanik
Union of India
State of Assam
Manojit Bhuyan
Ajit Borthakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
