Dismissed

Sukumuddin v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Nov 2019WP(C)/2881/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a request to file additional written statement and evidence in a Foreigners' Tribunal reference case. The court held that under prior suo-moto directions, references must be heard afresh from their respective stages without new evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without order as to cost.

Sukumuddin Vs the Union of India and 5… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010095552019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 2881/2019

¶5

1:SUKUMUDDIN

¶6

S/O- LT IBRAHIM ALI, R/O- VILL- LAWTHARI, P.O. AND P.S. MUKALMUA, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, HOME AFFAIRS DEPTT., NEW DELHI-01

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6

¶11

3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-01 INDIA

¶12

4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NRC ASSAM

¶13

5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER NALBARI P.O. NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781335

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) NALBARI P.O. NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 78133

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALI

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

13.11.2019

¶22

( Manojit Bhuyan, J ).

¶23

Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. G. Hazarika, learned counsel representing respondent no.1. Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel represents respondent nos.2, 5 and 6 whereas Ms. B. Das, learned counsel represents respondent no.3. Ms. A. Verma, learned counsel appears for respondent no.4.

¶24

Petitioner assails order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal No.2, Nalbari in F.T. Case (M-2) No.132/2015 whereby the prayer made in Petition No.288/2019 of the petitioner for filing additional written statement and additional evidence was rejected.

¶25

To trace the brief facts, the aforesaid F.T. Case (M-2) No.132/2015 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 signature of the Member or such opinions not being available in the case records or detailed orders

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

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.

¶28

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. 288/2019 seeking liberty/opportunity for filing additional written statement and to adduce additional evidence. As observed above, the said petition was rejected vide the impugned order dated 04.04.2019. 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.

¶29

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 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Sukumuddin v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumuddin v. the Union of India and 5 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

Akabbar Ali @ Akabbar Ali @ Akabbar Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Paritosh Das Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Babulal Namasudra Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Mofijuddin Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Abdul Hakim @ Abdul Hakim Kuresh Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Sarojani Sikdar Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.