Dismissed

Musstt. Jahura Khatoon @ Ms Jahura Khatun v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 May 2019WP(C)/3685/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed the writ petition against the Foreigners' Tribunal order declaring the petitioner a foreigner. Held that the Tribunal appreciated facts correctly and the petitioner failed to prove nationality via reliable evidence regarding her grandfather's existence or relationship.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim bail granted vide earlier order is recalled; directions of Tribunal to be complied with.

Musstt. Jahura Khatoon @ Ms Jahura… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010027682017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 3685/2017

¶5

1:MUSSTT. JAHURA KHATOON @ MS JAHURA KHATUN W/O JAMALUDDIN D/O JOIN UDDIN VILL- PONDITGHAT, P.S. KACHUA DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS.

¶8

REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, SASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- PIN - 110001.

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI -6.

¶10

3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B NAGAON P.S. NAGAON SADAR DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN - 782001.

¶11

4:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF KACHUA P.S. P.O. KACHUA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN - 782426.

¶12

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGOAN P.S. NAGAON SADAR DIST. NAGAON ASSA

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.A BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶15

:: BEFORE ::

¶16

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

16.05.2019

¶19

(Manojit Bhuyan, J)

¶20

Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. None appears for respondent no.1.

¶21

Petitioner assails order/opinion dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal (2^nd ), Nagaon in F.T. Case No.1839/2011, declaring her to be a foreigner, having illegally entered into Assam after 25.03.1971.

¶22

The petitioner projected one Jainuddin as her father and one Fazar Ali as her grandfather. Jainuddin’s name finds recorded in the Voter List of 2010 (Exhibit-3), son of Fazar Ali, village Jurirpar under Raha Legislative Assembly Constituency. Through said Jainuddin, linkage is sought to be established to Fazar Ali of village Bhakatgaon under Nagaon Legislative Assembly Constituency, whose name appears in the Voter List of 1966 (Exhibit-1) and Voter List of 1970 (Exhibit-2). These are the primary documents relied upon by the petitioner to prove her nationality.

¶23

Although the projected grandfather Fazar Ali is shown to hail from village Bhakatgaon in the Voter Lists of 1966 and 1970, statement made in the written statement is that the grandfather as well as the petitioner herself and her projected father were born at village Jurirpar.

¶24

In the Voter List of 2010 (Exhibit-3) the age of Jainuddin is shown as 62 years.

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

From the deposition of the petitioner as DW-1 and Jainuddin as DW-2 it is seen that clear statements have been made to the effect that said Jainuddin had cast vote in the year 2010 for the very first time. DW-2 stated that his name was not recorded in any earlier voter lists as he was a minor. This statement is apparently incorrect, inasmuch as, if Jainuddin was aged 62 years in the year 2010, his year of birth is 1948, meaning thereby, that he attained right to vote on or after the year 1969. This being the position, this Court would wonder why Jainuddin had cast vote for the very first time in the year 2010 i.e. after more than 40 years of attaining the right of franchise. Besides, the petitioner has failed to establish any relationship between herself and Jainuddin or to Fazar Ali through any cogent, reliable and admissible evidence. The petitioner, thus, failed to prove her nationality as an Indian citizen through Indian parents/grandparents relatable to a period prior to the cut-off date i.e. 24.03.1971. In fact, there are no documents to show even the existence of the projected father Jainuddin in Indian soil prior to 24.03.1971.

¶27

On a careful perusal of the records in original, we find that the Tribunal rendered opinion/order upon due appreciation of facts, evidence and documents. We find no infirmity in the findings and opinion recorded by the Tribunal. We would observe that the certiorari jurisdiction of the writ court being supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction, this Court would refrain from reviewing the findings of facts reached by the Tribunal. No case is made out demonstrating any errors apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference of the impugned opinion.

¶28

We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.

¶29

Interim bail granted vide order dated 20.06.2017 is recalled. The directions of the Tribunal made to the authorities concerned shall now be complied with.

¶30

Registry to return the case records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶31

JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Musstt. Jahura Khatoon @ Ms Jahura Khatun v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musstt. Jahura Khatoon @ Ms Jahura Khatun 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahanaz Begum @ Shaynaz Begum Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Abdul Rashid @ Abdur Rashid Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Montu Paul Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Pabitra Debnath Nath Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Md. Rahim Uddin Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Noor Islam @ Malan Ali Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.