Binoy Das Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR F U BARBHUIYA,MS S DAS Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.,SC, F.T

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 13.03.2026 (K.R. Surana, J)

¶22

Heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitoner, Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned CGC; Mr. N. Kalita, on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent are present.

¶23

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 10.05.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-II, Karimganj (now Sribhumi), Assam, in F.T. Case No. 589/2015, Police Ref. I.M.D.T. Case No. 64/01 by S.P. (B), Karimganj; old F.T. Case No. 190/06 of F.T.-I, Karimganj, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant.

¶24

In view of the nature of order which is proposed to be passed, the entire facts and evidence have not been referred to.

¶25

It is suffice to mention that in order to contest the reference, where the petitioner is alleged to be an illegal migrant/ foreigner, apart from filing

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

the written statement, the petitioner had examined himself as DW-1 and along with his evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner had exhibited the following documents:

¶28

Certified copy of voter’s list of 1966 (Ext.1), showing the names of 2 (two) as Bipin Ram Das, son of Surja Ram Das and Monobala Das wife of Bipin Ram Das; certified copy of voter’s list of 1997 (Ext.2) showing the name of Binoy Das son of Bipin Ram Das and Sita Rani Das wife of Binoy Das; voter’s list of 2005 (Ext.3) disclosing the name of 5 (five) voters including the name of Binoy Das son of Bipin Ram Das; money receipt dated 27.01.2003, issued by the Dhalcherra Gaon Panchayat (Ext.4); EPIC of the petitioner (Ext.5); certified copy of final khatian (Ext.6).

¶29

The petitioner had also filed an additional evidence-on-affidavit.

¶30

He was cross-examined by the State earlier on 15.02.2019 and he was again cross-examined on the additional evidence-on-affidavit on 25.04.2019. He has also examined one Satyendra Kr. Das as DW-2. It appears that he knew the petitioner since childhood and he is resident of the same village and he has exhibited his EPIC as Ext.7. He was cross-examined on 25.04.2019.

¶31

In the impugned opinion although 7 (seven) exhibits have been referred to, the discussion and appreciation of the evidence was restricted to Ext.1 and Ext.6, and there is no finding by the said learned Tribunal on Ext nos. 2 to 5 and Ext.7. Moreover, Ext.1 and Ext.6 were discarded on the finding that they were not related to the petitioner and the evidence of PW-2 was

¶32

Page No.# 4/5

¶33

discarded, as not believable without any documents. Resultantly, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of 25.03.1971 stream. As the learned Tribunal has not discussed Ext nos. 2 to 5 and Ext.7, the Court is of the considered opinion that this call for a remand back to the said learned Tribunal for fresh appreciation of the evidence on record.

¶34

This Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, cannot venture to examine and deal with the Ext nos. 2 to 5 and Ext.7, as this Court is not exercising any appellate or revisional jurisdiction. In exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, original documents ought not to be examined so as to make this Court act like a Tribunal having original jurisdiction to appreciate the exhibited documents.

¶35

Accordingly, the writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above subject to following orders:-

¶36

i. The impugned opinion dated 10.05.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-II, Karimganj (now Sribhumi), Assam, in F.T. Case No. 589/2015, Police Ref. I.M.D.T. Case No. 64/01 by S.P. (B), Karimganj; old F.T. Case No. 190/06 of F.T.-I, Karimganj, is hereby set aside.

¶37

ii. The matter is remanded back to the learned Foreigners Tribunal-II, Karimganj, Assam, for a fresh opinion after discussing all the exhibited documents.

¶38

iii. The petitioner, who is duly represented by his learned counsel is directed to appear before the said learned Tribunal on or before 29.04.2026 and by producing a certified copy of the

¶39

Page No.# 5/5

¶40

order, and wait for further orders that may passed by the said learned Tribunal.

¶41

iv. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear before the said learned Tribunal on the date fixed, the said learned Tribunal shall have the liberty to treat the petitioner as absent on call and pass such order as may be deem fit and proper.

¶42

The Registry shall send back the records expeditiously to the said learned Tribunal.

¶43

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed by interfering with the impugned opinion dated 10.05.2019, as per terms as indicated above.

¶44

The parties shall bear their own cost.

¶45

JUDGE JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Binoy Das v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binoy Das v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union of India and 2 Ors. Vs Dinesh Chandra and Ors.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs P J Mohana Panicker and 38 Ors.

Fatema Khatoon Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Srimot Das and 3 Ors. Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Chanmahammad Ali and 134 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sabera Begum Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.