Dismissed

Rokiya Khatun v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Mar 2023WP(C)/8449/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the marking of 'D' in her voter list without notice or verification. The Court held that the matter requires factual determination by the Foreigners Tribunal. It directed the Superintendent of Police to verify the case and refer it to the Tribunal within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Superintendent of Police to verify the petitioner's case and refer it to the Foreigners Tribunal within two months.

Rokiya Khatun Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010276502019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/8449/2019

¶5

ROKIYA KHATUN

¶6

D/O- LT HAJAR ALI, W/O- SHER ALI, VILL- KHUTAMARI, P.O. DAIDURI, P.S. GOALPARA, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783101

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY. OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1

¶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 NEW DELHI-1

¶11

4:THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NRC ASSAM DISPUR GHY-6

¶12

5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER GOALPARA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783121

¶13

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GOALPARA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

PIN- 783121

¶16

7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE GOALPARA P.S. DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 78312

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M I HUSSAIN

¶18

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

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶21

ORDER

¶22

10-03-2023

¶23

Heard Shri M. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned CGC for the respondent nos. 1 and 4 whereas Shri J. Payeng, learned State Counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 5, 6 & 7 and Shri A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI for the respondent no. 3.

¶24

The grievance of the petitioner is the action of the authorities in marking ‘D’ against the name of the petitioner in the voter list of village Khutamari under the 38 Goalpara West LAC. It is the case of the petitioner that such marking was without any notice or intimation or even verification of any documents. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a permanent resident of the village Khutamari, PS Goalpara. She has further claimed that she is presently residing at village Khutamari under 38 Goalpara West LAC in the district of Goalpara. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the action of marking ‘D’ against her name. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly prays for a direction for consideration of his case and direct the appropriate authority for removal of the ‘D’ from his name.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that a procedure had been laid down to adjudicate the matter where the persons are aggrieved by marking ‘D’ against their names in the voter list and the present case can also be dealt with by the same procedure.

¶26

Shri A. I. Ali, the learned Standing Counsel, ECI has placed before this Court an order

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

dated 18.01.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C)/267/2022 by which a case of similar nature has been disposed of. By the said order, this Court had observed that the issue involved would require factual determination and the appropriate forum would be the concerned Foreigners Tribunal, as a Writ Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not have adequate means and expertise to decide the question of fact which are disputed. It was further directed that the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district would verify the case of the petitioner and thereafter refer the matter to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal which will deal with the matter in accordance with law.

¶29

Following the aforesaid order, the present case is also disposed of by directing Superintendent of Police, Border (respondent no. 6) to examine and verify the case of the petitioner and if on such verification it is found that the case of the petitioner is yet to be referred to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal, to immediately refer the case to the concerned Tribunal which in turn would examine the claim of the petitioner.

¶30

In view of the prayer made for removal of marking ‘D’ in the voter list from the concerned No. 38 Goalpara West LAC, Reference, if not made till now, be made within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon such reference being made, the petitioner may participate in such proceedings and establish her claim before the Tribunal.

¶31

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Rokiya Khatun v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rokiya Khatun v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fulmati Nessa and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ala Uddin and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Karuna Deury Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Hafizur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

M/S Ann Associates Vs the General Manager,Northern Frontier Railway

Pratati Mahanta and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.