Dismissed

Purnima Das v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Nov 2019WP(C)/4952/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Foreigners Tribunal declaring the petitioner a foreigner. The Court found the petitioner failed to establish lineage linkage and upheld the Tribunal's findings, noting the writ court's jurisdiction is supervisory.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without order as to costs; case records sent back to the Tribunal.

Purnima Das Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors. — Property and Title | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010166142019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 4952/2019

¶5

1:PURNIMA DAS

¶6

D/O LT. HRIDOY SINGHA @ HRIDOY CHANDRA SINGHA, W/O SIR RAHAL DAS, VILL. GOGAMUKH CHARIALI GAON, P.O. AND P.S. GOGAMUKH, PIN787001, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TRILOK MARK, NEW DELHI-110001

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶11

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR

¶12

GUWAHATI-781006

¶13

3:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY NIRBACHAN BHAWAN

¶14

NEW DELHI-1

¶15

4:THE STATE OF COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005

¶16

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR P.O. P.S. AND DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

PIN-787001

¶19

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) LAKHIMPUR P.O.P.S. AND DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78700

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B BURAGOHAIN

¶21

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

¶22

:: BEFORE ::

¶23

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

O R D E R

01.11.2019

(Manojit Bhuyan, J)

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

¶28

Petitioner assails order/opinion dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal- II, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Lakhimpur FT-II (D) Case No.114/2009, declaring her to be a foreigner, having illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory of Bangladesh after 25.03.1971.

¶29

For the purpose of discharging burden as required under section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove that she is not a foreigner, the petitioner projected one

¶30

Page No.# 3/5

¶31

Bas Ch. Singha as her grandfather; one Hriday Singha, as the father and one Dashami Singha, as her mother. In support of her case, as many as 7 (seven) documents were exhibited, particulars of which may be noticed as under:

¶32

(i) Exhibit-1 – School Certificate dated 12.02.1992, issued by the Haren Ch. Ggoi, Headmaster of Rupahi Prathamik Vidyalaya, certifying that the petitioner is the daughter of late Hriday Singha who studied upto Class-III in the year 31.12.1992.

¶33

(ii) Exhibit-2 – Certified copy of Voter List of 1989 in the name of one Hriday Singha, son of Siwas, projected as the father of the petitioner, of village Rupahi Gaon, Part No.84, P.S. Dhakuakhana, district- Lakhimpur under 112 No. Dhakuakhana LAC.

¶34

(iii) Exhibit-3 – Certified copy of Voter List of 1965 in the name of one Sri Bas Ch. Singha, projected as the grandfather of the petitioner, of village Patoliati, Part No.46, P.S. Kaliabor, district Nagaon under 90 Kaliabor LAC.

¶35

(iv) Exhibit-4 – Certified copy of Voter List of 2005 in the name of one Hriday Ch. Singha, son of Sibash Singha and one Dashami Singha, wife of Hriday Singha, projected as the father and mother of the petitioner, of village Dorji Nepali, P.S. Dhemaji under 113 No. Dhemaji LAC.

¶36

(v) Exhibit-5 – Certified copy of Voter List of 2005 in the name of the petitioner Purnima Das, wife of Rakhal Das, of village Gogamukh Chariali, P.S. Gogamukh, district- Dhemaji under 113 No. Dhemaji (SC) LAC.

¶37

(vi) Exhibit-6 – NRC details of the year 1966 showing the name of one Sri Bas Ch. Singha, projected as the grandfather of the petitioner, of village Matoli Ati, Mouza Borbhogia under 90 Kaliabor LAC.

¶38

(vii) Exhibit-7 – Elector Photo Identity Card dated 01.10.2013, showing the name of the petitioner Purnima Das with relation to one Rasal Das.

¶39

Besides the documents above, the petitioner examined herself as DW-1 and one Haren Ch. Ggoi, Headmaster of Rupahi Prathamik Vidyalaya as DW-2.

¶40

The Exhibits-2, 3 and 4 are the Voter Lists of 1989, 1965 and 2005, reflecting

¶41

Page No.# 4/5

¶42

the name of one Hriday Singha, who is projected as the father of the petitioner, one Bas Ch. Singha, who is projected as the grandfather of the petitioner and one Dashami Singha, who is projected as the mother of the petitioner. The Voter List of 2005 with the name of the petitioner at Exhibit-5 which, however, bore no relevance as her relation is shown with her projected husband and not with the father or grandfather. The NRC details of 1966 at Exhibit-6 and the Elector Photo Identity Card at Exhibit-7 are not relevant piece of documents to prove citizenship.

¶43

The only document brought on record for the purpose of establishing linkage to her projected father Hriday Singha is the Exhibit-1 School Certificate. The Headmaster of the School i.e. Haren Ch. Gogoi deposed as DW-2. It is seen from the deposition of DW-2 that the Certificate was issued on 12.02.1992 on a date prior to passing of the Class-III final examination held on 31.12.1992. DW-2 stated that he could not bring the Admission Register showing admission of the petitioner as he had mistakenly brought the Admission Register of 1989. Be that as it may, a mere perusal of the Exhibit-1 document shows that there are inherent fallacies having regard to the contents thereof. The evidence tendered by DW-2, on the face of it, falls short of being considered as cogent, reliable and admissible evidence for the purpose of establishing linkage of the petitioner to the projected grandfather and father.

¶44

As the primary issue in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 relates to determination as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not, the relevant facts being especially within the knowledge of the proceedee, therefore, the burden of proving citizenship absolutely rests upon the proceedee, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, 1872. This is mandated under section 9 of the aforesaid Act, 1946. In the instant case and as observed above, the petitioner not only failed to discharge the burden but also utterly failed to make proof of the most crucial aspect, that is, in establishing linkage to her projected father and grandfather.

¶45

Page No.# 5/5

¶46

On the available materials, we find that the Tribunal rendered opinion/order upon due appreciation of the entire facts, evidence and documents brought on record. 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 that the impugned opinion/order was rendered without affording opportunity of hearing or in violation of the principles of natural justice and/or that it suffers from illegality on any ground of having been passed by placing reliance on evidence which is legally impermissible in law and/or that the Tribunal refused to admit admissible evidence and/or that the findings finds no support by any evidence at all. In other words, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case demonstrating any errors apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference of the impugned opinion.

¶47

On the discussions and findings above, we find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.

¶48

Office to send back the case records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶49

A copy of this order be made part of the case records of the Tribunal for future reference.

¶50

JUDGE JUDGE

¶51

Comparing Assistant

Purnima Das v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purnima Das 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

Fajal Ali Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Babul Ali Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Jahirul Islam @ Johirul Islam @ Ahirul Hoque Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Aizur Rahman Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Asha Begum @ Ashu @ Ayesha Begum Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gias Uddin and 2 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.