Partly allowed

Mamoni Baidya v. Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Feb 2023WP(C)/3815/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court addressed a writ petition where the petitioner sought registration but faced unavailability of the FRRO in her district. The court deprecated the petitioner's counsel's altered stand and granted two months extension for registration at Sonitpur FRRO.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted two months to get registered before the concerned FRRO at Sonitpur district.

Mamoni Baidya Vs Union of India and 5 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010128412019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3815/2019

¶5

MAMONI BAIDYA

¶6

W/O- SRI SAMIRAN BAIDYA AND D/O- MANTA BAIDYA, R/O- VILLAMRITPUR, P.O AND P.S- SILAPATHAR, DIST- DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN-787059

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI- 110001

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006

¶10

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI P.O AND DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) DHEMAJI P.O AND DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 5:SPECIAL FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICER SONITPUR TEZPUR

¶11

Page No.# 2/3

¶12

DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784001 6:OFFICER IN CHARGE P.S AND P.O- SILAPATHAR DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 78705

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G P BHOWMIK

¶14

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

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

02.02.2023

¶19

(A.M. Bujor Barua, J)

¶20

By the order dated 27.01.2023, it was recorded that the petitioner takes a stand that she was prevented by some concerned Government official from getting registered and therefore, she is before the Court and accordingly she was required to file an affidavit stating the name of the concerned Government official. But today the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had incorrectly stated the same.

¶21

The act of the learned counsel for the petitioner is deprecated.

¶22

Mr. J Payeng, learned counsel for the Home Department of the Government of Assam on the other hand states that the concerned FRRO before whom the registration is required to be made is presently not available in the Dhemaji district from where the petitioner belongs and such facilities are available in the Sonitpur district.

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

The petitioner raises a further grievance that the earlier time period granted for getting registered is over in the meantime and therefore, the petitioner is unable to get registered.

¶25

Accordingly, we grant another two months time to the petitioner to get registered before the concerned FRRO i.e. the FRRO at Sonitpur district.

¶26

The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶27

JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Mamoni Baidya v. Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamoni Baidya v. 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

Jaynal Abedin Vs the Union of India

Nobiron Nessa Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Abdul Kader @ Abdul Kader Sarkar Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Abhhijit Sarmah Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

Abhijit Sarma and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Hanufa Khatun Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.