Allowed

Fulchan Ali Mondal v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC26 Apr 2022WP(C)/4196/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Foreigners Tribunal order declaring him a post-1971 foreigner. The High Court held that certified copies of voters lists and patta documents were admissible evidence, rendering the Tribunal's decision to ignore them without examining issuing authorities erroneous. The matter was remanded for re-appreciation of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Foreigners Tribunal for re-appreciation of evidence; LCR remitted; interim order continued.

Fulchan Ali Mondal Vs the Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010134492018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4196/2018

¶5

FULCHAN ALI MONDAL

¶6

S/O- LT BERAM ALI MONDAL, VILL- BARAIBARI PART-V, PS GAURIPUR, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6

¶10

3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN

¶11

ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI

¶12

4:THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS ASSAM 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA GUWAHATI SHILLONG ROAD BHANGAGARH GHY ASSAM PIN- 781005

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF KAMRUP (M) DISTRICT AT PANBAZAR PO AND PS PANBAZAR DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781001 6:THE DY. COMMISSION OF POLICE (B)

¶15

AT PANBAZAR PO AND PS PANBAZAR DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 78100

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A T SARKAR

¶17

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

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 26-04-2022

¶21

(N. Kotiswar Singh, J.)

¶22

Heard Mr. A. T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned Special Counsel, FT; Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned ASGI; Ms. K. Phookan, learned Government Advocate, Assam; Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, ECI and Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, NRC.

¶23

2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.05.2018 passed in FT Case No.127 of 2017 by the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (Metro) 3^rd , Guwahati-3 No.5 by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream.

¶24

3. While the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a number of grounds in challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great emphasis on the fact that the Tribunal has wrongly appreciated certain evidences on record, i.e., certified

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

copy of the voters list of 1997, 2008, 2010, 2017 and the periodic patta, which are all certified copies but the Tribunal held that these documents were not proved in accordance with law by calling the concerned issuing authorities.

¶27

4. We are of the view that if these are certified copies as we have also observed, there is no need to examine the issuing authorities and, as such, the said documents have to be taken into consideration as these are admissible evidences. As regards the relevancy and reliability of the same are concerned, that is a part of the appreciation of evidence. Nevertheless, the Tribunal cannot ignore these documents on the ground that the issuing authorities of the documents were not examined in accordance with law, since these are admissible.

¶28

5. Accordingly, and without examining on merit the other grounds raised in this petition challenging the order dated 24.05.2018, we are satisfied that the matter needs to be remanded to the Tribunal for re-appreciation of the evidence by taking into consideration the aforesaid evidences as these are all admissible evidences. If these evidences are taken into account also, it may have the effect of changing the nature and credibility of the evidences. After all, an evidence if considered along with other evidence may throw a different light on the factual position. Therefore, all the evidences should be taken into consideration together by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion as to the citizenship status of the petitioner.

¶29

6. It goes without saying that if certain material and relevant evidences have not been considered by the decision-making authority, the entire decision becomes vitiated. Thus, the matter requires to be re-considered and the Tribunal should pass a fresh order by appreciating all the admissible evidences on record.

¶30

7. Under the circumstances, we allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 24.05.2018 passed in FT Case No.127 of 2017 by the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (Metro)-3^rd , Guwahati-3.

¶31

8. The petitioner will appear before the Tribunal on or before 13.06.2022. The Tribunal will pass a fresh order as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner after considering all the admissible evidences on record including the above referred evidences in the light of the observation made above.

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

9. The earlier interim order dated 26.06.2018 will continue till culmination of the proceeding before the Tribunal.

¶34

10. LCR be remitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal.

¶35

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

¶36

JUDGE JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Fulchan Ali Mondal v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fulchan Ali Mondal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Rasida Khatun @ Rachida Khatun and 5 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Nizam Khan Vs the Board of Directors of Azad Samabay Samittee Ltd. and 5 Ors. E

Rustam Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Sarala Das Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Suauddin Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.