Allowed

Jaynuddin Ali v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Nov 2019WP(C)/5032/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition filed by JAYNUDDIN ALI against an ex-parte order declaring him a foreigner. The High Court set aside the 2012 order finding irregularities in service of notice under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, and direction the Tribunal to proceed with the case within sixty days from November 29, 2019.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 07.01.2012 was set aside. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Foreigners' Tribunal on 29.11.2019 to file a written statement. The Tribunal was directed to conclud

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

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010166192019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 5032/2019

¶5

1:JAYNUDDIN ALI

¶6

S/O. LT. SAYED ALI, VILL. KASAKHAITI, P.S. RUPAHIHAT, DIST. NAGAON, 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, TILOK MARG, NEW DELHI-01.

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

¶11

3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER JORHAT P.O. AND DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785001.

¶12

4:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (B) JORHAT P.O. AND DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785001.

¶13

5:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NEW DELHI-01.

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

6:THE N.R.C. CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZEN (NRC) ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-05

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SIKDAR

¶17

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

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

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

¶20

order

¶21

Date : 08-11-2019

¶22

(Manojit Bhuyan, J)

¶23

Heard Mr. A R Sikdar, 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, 3 and 4. Ms. B. Das, learned counsel represents respondent no. 5 whereas Ms. A. Verma, learned counsel appears for respondent no. 6.

¶24

Petitioner assails ex-parte order/opinion dated 07.01.2012 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat, in FT Case No. JFT. 2823/06, declaring him to be a foreigner, having illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971 without any valid document.

¶25

Mr. Sikdar submits that the order of the Tribunal was passed without granting opportunity to the petitioner to contest the case and/or opportunity to discharge the burden as required under Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act 1946. It is stated that no notice, whatsoever, was served upon the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner came to learn about the impugned opinion only when his name was not enlisted in the final draft NRC.

¶26

To test the arguments so advanced we have perused the materials available on record. From the Service Report available at reverse page 17 of the case records, it is seen that steps on the petitioner was taken in the substituted manner. However, the Report discloses that as

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

the petitioner was not to be found in the address mentioned, therefore, substituted service was sought to be effected by means of “Latkaijari” in presence of witnesses. But the particulars of witness are not discernible in the Report.

¶29

Having regard to the manner of service, we are of the considered view that substituted service of notice, as required to be done under paragraph 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, was not complied with. We are also of the view that the petitioner was denied opportunity of hearing to contest the case on merits. It clearly appears that no notice was served on the petitioner by affixing a copy of the notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the petitioner ordinarily resides or last resided or reportedly resided or personally worked for gain or carries on business.

¶30

In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order dated 07.01.2012 with direction to the petitioner to appear before the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat on 29.11.2019, on which date he shall file his written statement without fail. No fresh Notice is required to be issued by the Tribunal, either for his appearance or for filing written statement. The Tribunal shall proceed accordingly and conclude the proceeding within 60(sixty) days from 29.11.2019. We make it clear that if the petitioner defaults in appearing before the Tribunal and to file written statement on 29.11.2019 and/or defaults in participating in the proceeding on the dates to be fixed in the case, it shall be open to the Tribunal to pass such order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper and in accordance with law.

¶31

For the purpose of concluding the reference case within the period specified above, the Tribunal shall act upon the certified copy of this order, which the petitioner is permitted to furnish before the Tribunal on the date of appearance i.e. 29.11.2019.

¶32

To the extent above, the writ petition stands allowed.

¶33

Office to return the case records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶34

JUDGE JUDGE

¶35

Page No.# 4/4

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Jaynuddin Ali v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaynuddin Ali 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

Hari Sankar Kundu Vs the Union of India and 5ORS

Musstt. Akiran Nessa Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Musstt. Mayarun Nessa Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Rekha Das @ Rekha Rani Das Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Smti Sandhya Rani Ghosh and 2 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Banesa Khatoon (Begum) Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.