Allowed

Husna Begum v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Jun 2022WP(C)/3962/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed the petition of a petitioner in an NRCA case who missed Tribunal hearings due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The Court set aside the ex-parte order of the Foreigners Tribunal, remanded the matter for a fresh hearing, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Ex-parte order dated 08.02.2021 set aside; fresh hearing directed; petitioner granted bail with conditions.

Husna Begum Vs the Union of India and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010071142022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3962/2022

¶5

HUSNA BEGUM

¶6

W/O. ABDUL KARIM BARBHUYIA @ ABDUL KARIM, D/O. LT. ABDUL NOOR LASKAR, VILL. MOHANPUR PART-II, P.S. KATHIGARAH, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶10

REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

¶11

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶12

CACHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788003.

¶13

4:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (B)

¶14

CACHAR ASSAM-788001.

¶15

5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA-110001.

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

6:THE STATE COORDINATOR

¶18

NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM 781032

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY

¶20

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

¶21

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

¶22

ORDER

¶23

15.06.2022

¶24

[ N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ(Acting) ]

¶25

Heard Mr. M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned CGC appearing for respondent No.1 as well as appearing on behalf of standing counsel, NRC, for respondent No.6; Mr. G. Sarma, learned special counsel, FT, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4; Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel, ECI, appearing for respondent No.5 and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent No.3.

¶26

2. Considering the nature of the case, we are of the view that the matter may be disposed of at this stage without issuing any formal notice and requisitioning the records, as in our opinion there are sufficient materials on record to dispose of this matter.

¶27

3. From the record, it appears that the petitioner after receipt of notice from the Tribunal appeared before the Tribunal on 15.01.2020 and on the next date fixed on 26.02.2020 she was present and the Tribunal directed the petitioner to file her written statement and the next

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

date was fixed on 27.03.2020 for evidence. Unfortunately, according to the petitioner because of the corona pandemic being struck in the State which led to imposition of lock down, the petitioner could neither attend the Tribunal on the next date fixed nor could remain in touch with her engaged counsel. The order itself passed by the Tribunal on 21.04.2020 indicates that the office had remained closed due to corona pandemic and accordingly, the matter was fixed on 06.05.2020 for evidence. However, since on 21.04.2020 the petitioner was not present as she was not aware of the date fixed on 21.04.2020, she remained absent without taking any steps. According to the petitioner, since the corona pandemic continued for a long time, she was under bonafide impression that she can report to the Tribunal only when the situation improves and restrictions are removed. But unfortunately, she came to know later on that the matter has been proceeded ex-parte and the evidence was closed on 21.01.2021 and the opinion rendered on 08.02.2021.

¶30

4. We have perused the copies of the orders annexed by the petitioner in this petition. The fact that there was a pandemic during the aforesaid period has not been contested by the learned counsel for the State. We also noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to several voters lists and other documents to indicate that she is a bonafide Indian and not a foreigner.

¶31

5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that there were genuine reasons for not being able to be present before the Tribunal which led to the passing of the ex-parte order and considering the documents which have been brought to our notice, we are of the opinion that the petitioner may be afforded another opportunity to prove her case that she is an Indian and not a foreigner.

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

6. For the reasons discussed above, we allow this petition by setting aside the impugned ex-parte order dated 08.02.2021 passed in Case No.F.T.4^th /D/ 179/2019 by the learned Foreigners' Tribunal-4^th , Cachar at Silchar, Assam. Accordingly, the petitioner will appear before the Foreigners Tribunal on 21.07.2022 and also will adduce evidence and the learned Tribunal after hearing the petitioner as well as on appreciation of evidence on record shall pass a fresh opinion in accordance with law.

¶34

7. However, since citizenship of the petitioner has come under cloud, she will remain on bail during the proceeding for which she will appear before the Superintendent of Police (B), Cachar within 15(fifteen) days from today by furnishing a bail bond of ` 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the said authority. The concerned Superintendent of Police (B) shall also take necessary steps for capturing the fingerprints and biometrics of the iris of the petitioner. It is also made clear that the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Cachar district without obtaining permission from the Superintendent of Police (B), Cachar.

¶35

Sd/- Nani Tagia Sd/- N. Kotiswar Singh JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Husna Begum v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Husna Begum 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

Sasadhar Mandal @ Shashadhar Mandal Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Jilal Haque Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Ismail Ali Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Banes Ali @ Banas Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Musstt. Sajida Khatun @ Musstt Sazeda Khatoon @ Sajida Khatun @ Sajida Begum Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Musst. Monowara Begum @ Manuwara @ Manobara Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.