Allowed

Abdul Karim v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Jun 2022WP(C)/1307/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court heard a writ petition challenging subsequent proceedings by Foreigners Tribunal-10, Nagaon against a person previously declared not to be a foreigner by another Tribunal. The Court allowed the petition, directing the Tribunal to ascertain the petitioner's identity and close the proceeding if they are the same individual, citing res judicata.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed directing the Tribunal to ascertain the identity of the petitioner and pass an order closing the proceeding if he is the same person as the earlier proceedee FT Case No. F

Abdul Karim Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010040132018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1307/2018

¶5

ABDUL KARIM

¶6

S/O- LATE ABDUL RAHIM, VILL- CHARLOK, P.S- JMK, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶10

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GHY- 07

¶12

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) NAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM

¶13

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM 6:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE JAMUNAMUKH P.S DIST- NAGAON ASSA

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P

¶16

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

¶17

B E F O R E

¶18

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA O R D E R

¶19

06.06.2022

¶20

[N. Kotiswar Singh, (C.J. (Acting)]

¶21

Heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned ASGI; Mr. G. Sharma, learned Special Counsel, FT and Ms. U. Das, learned Government Advocate.

¶22

2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the subsequent proceeding initiated against him by the Foreigners Tribunal-10^th , Nagaon in FT Case No.(D)1143/2015 on the ground that the petitioner was earlier proceeded before the Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in FT Case No.FT/H/173/2013 in which by an opinion dated 08.01.2015 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, the petitioner therein was declared not to be a foreigner.

¶23

3. It has been submitted that the present petitioner is the same person, who was proceeded in the aforesaid FT Case No. FT/H/173/2013 and, as such, the present petition will not lie as the principle of res judicata will also be applicable in a proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal as held by this Court in a number of decisions based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Kuddus Vs. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604 .

¶24

4. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proceedee, who was earlier proceeded in FT Case No. FT/H/173/2013 was Md. Abdul Karim, son of Md. Abdul Rahim, vill. Charlock, PS. Jamunamukh, Dist. Nagaon. In the present case also, as can be seen from the notice, it is clear that it is the same person, namely, Md. Abdul Karim, son of late Abdul Rahim, vill. Charlock, PS. Jamunamukh, Dist. Hojai, Assam, who was proceeded.

¶25

5. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the subsequent proceeding will not lie.

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

6. We also find similarity in the name of the present petitioner with the earlier proceedee, who was proceeded in FT Case No. FT/H/173/2013 and if the present petitioner is the same person, who was proceeded earlier in FT Case No. FT/H/173/2013, the subsequent proceeding will not lie being hit by the principle of res judicata. Accordingly, the Tribunal will first decide whether the present petitioner is the same person, who was proceeded earlier in FT Case No. FT/H/173/2013 and if the Tribunal finds that he is the same person, the Tribunal will close the proceeding without any further investigation into the matter.

¶28

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed directing the Tribunal to ascertain the identity of the petitioner as to whether he is the same person who was proceeded earlier in FT Case No. FT/H/173/2013 and pass the order in accordance with law.

¶29

8. The petitioner will appear before the Tribunal on or before 20.07.2022. The Tribunal, after ascertaining the identity of the petitioner, will pass necessary order regarding the citizenship status of the petitioner.

¶30

9. LCR be remitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal.

¶31

10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Karim v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Karim 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukkur Ali and 7 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Anis Ali @ Anish Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Sahidulla @ Md. Julhas Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Abdul Awal @ Ayub Ali Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Kulsam Nessa @ Musstt. Kalsum Begum Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Md. Arkim Ali @ Arakim Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.