The Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a Foreigners Tribunal order. The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove a link with projected parents and found no perversity in the Tribunal's decision under Article 226.
The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
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
GAHC010056792019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 4727/2019
1:AIMONA KHATUN @ AYMONA KHATUN @ AYAMANA KHATUN D/O LT. TAFIL ALI @ TAFIL SEK @ TOFIL UDDIN, W/O EUSUF @ EUSUP ALI @ IUCHUP ALI, R/O VILL. DIGHIPAM, P.S. BAGHBAR, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001
2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI-110001
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BARPETA ASSAM
6:THE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS
Page No.# 2/3
BHANGAGHAR GUWAHATI-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
:::BEFORE:::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER (ORAL)
05.02.2020
(P.J. Saikia, J.)
Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned CGC, representing respondent No. 1; Ms. B. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission, representing respondent No. 2; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal, representing respondent Nos. 3 to 5; and Ms. U. Das, learned Standing Counsel, NRC, representing respondent No. 6.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the opinion dated 08.11.2018, passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 6, Barpeta, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 684/16.
3. On a reference made by the competent authority, the petitioner was served notice by the Tribunal. He appeared before the Tribunal with a written statement in order to repudiate the fact that he is a foreigner of post 1971 stream. In order to prove his case, he filed certain documents. The documents are –
Page No.# 3/3
4. During the hearing of the matter, the petitioner examined himself and the Gaon Bura, who issued ExhibitF.
5. The projected father and mother of the petitioner are Tafil Ali and Jamiran Nessa, respectively. Their names have appeared in the Voter Lists of 1966 & 1970. The name of Jamiran Nessa further appeared in the Voter Lists of the year 1977 & 1997.
6. The Gaon Panchayat Secretary, who issued Exhibit-D and the Gaon Bura, who issued Exhibit-E, were not examined.
7. Based of the ratio laid down in Rupjan Begum Vs. Union of India, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 579, the learned Tribunal refused to accept Exhibit-F as an instrument for proving the citizenship of the present petitioner. Finally, the Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to establish his link with Tafil Ali and Jamiran Nessa, the projected father and mother of the petitioner.
8. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Tribunal. In this case the petitioner could not file a single document linking him with his projected parents. We find that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence placed before it. There is no doubt that a Writ Court is not an Appellate or Reviewing authority. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India is to be exercised to do real and substantial justice. A Writ Court will interfere only when there is perversity in the decision of the Tribunal. Here in this case, we failed to find perversity in the impugned opinion and therefore, the present writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and it stands dismissed. No cost.
Case records be returned forthwith.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable to challenge the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal lacking perversity.
Whether the Tribunal correctly appreciated the evidence where no document linked the petitioner with projected parents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rupjan Begum Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶37
Rupjan Begum Vs. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 579 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aimona Khatun @ Aymona Khatun @ Ayamana Khatun
The Union of India
The Election Commission of India
The State of Assam
The Deputy Commissioner Barpeta Assam
The Coordinator National Register of Citizens
Manojit Bhuyan
Parthivjyoti Saikia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
