Allowed

Sahidul Islam @ Md. Sahidur Seikh v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Feb 2023WP(C)/2347/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court quashed an ex parte opinion in a nationality case which was passed without following statutory procedure for service of notice. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal for a proper hearing.

What did the court decide?

The ex parte opinion dated 30.10.2018 in FT Case no. 34/2011 is set aside; petitioner directed to appear on 29.03.2023.

Sahidul Islam @ Md. Sahidur Seikh Vs the Union of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010134362022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. WP(C)/2347/2021

¶5

SAHIDUL ISLAM @ MD. SAHIDUR SEIKH S/O- BOHIYET SHEIKH R/O- VILL- DAYARCHAR P.O- FEKAMARI P.S. SOUTH SALMARA DIST.- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN-783135

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVT. OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI- 110001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI- 110001 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZENS ASSAM 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA

¶8

Page No.# 2/4

¶9

G.S.ROAD BHANGAGARH GHY ASSAM PIN- 781005 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER JORHAT P.O. JORHAT P.S. JORHAT DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001 6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR P.O. FEKAMARI DIST.- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN- 783135 7:THE FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL JORHAT ASSAM DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001 8:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) JORHAT ASSAM P.O JORHAT P.S.- JORHAT DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001 9:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF JORHAT P.S. P.O JORHAT P.S.- JORHAT DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001 -----------Advocate for : MR. M AHMED Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS

¶10

Page No.# 3/4

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN JUDGMENT

¶13

13.02.2023

¶14

Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 4; Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 8 and 9; Mr. A. Hoque, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 3; and Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6.

¶15

The petitioner was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat for an opinion as to whether he is a person who entered the state of Assam from the specified territory subsequent to 25.03.1971. The order dated 02.07.2018 as per the order sheet reveals as extracted:

¶16

“The O.P. of the case is absent today without any step.

¶17

It appears from the report of the P/S that having failed to ‘trace out the present residential address/where about of the said O.P. the notice therefore being displayed by pasting the same in a conspicuous place. Hence, the notice is duly served as per 3[5][f] of the F[T] order, 1964.

¶18

However, inspite of the completion of the service of notice, the said O.P. is absent today without any step.

¶19

For the ends of justice, the case is fixed again on 13.07.2018 for app. & W.S.”

¶20

Due to non appearance of the petitioner an ex-parte opinion dated 30.10.2018 in FT Case no. 34/2011 was passed. Being aggrieved this writ petition is instituted. The petitioner takes a stand that he did not receive any notice from the tribunal requiring his appearance. The order dated 02.07.2018 makes it discernible that having failed to trace out the petitioner, the notice was displayed by pasting the same in a conspicuous place, without stating as to what was the conspicuous place. The said procedure that was adopted appears to be in deviation of the required procedure of the law, in as much as, the requirement of law is that

¶21

Page No.# 4/4

¶22

the notice is to be pasted at the last known residential address of the proceedee in case he is untraceable, and it cannot at any convenient place as per the discretion of the tribunal and call it to be a conspicuous place.

¶23

Considering the matter in its entirety and for the interest of the justice, the ex-parte opinion dated 30.10.2018 in FT Case no. 34/2011 is set aside.

¶24

The petitioner to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat on 29.03.2023 and upon his appearance that the tribunal may render its opinion as per law, as may be advised.

¶25

Writ petition stands allowed as indicated above.

¶26

Send back the LCR.

¶27

JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Sahidul Islam @ Md. Sahidur Seikh v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahidul Islam @ Md. Sahidur Seikh v. the Union of India and 8 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

Ain Uddin Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Jaynab Khatun Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Ranjit Barman Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Sahidul Islam @ Md. Sahidur Seikh Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Sukla Rani Deb Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Mamiran Nessa Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.