Kulsuma Begum Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY OF HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 ASSAM 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) HOJAI ASSAM 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HOJAI P.O AND DIST- HOJAI ASSAM 5:THE ASSAM STATE COORDINATOR OF NRC BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 5 6:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NEW DELHI- 0

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : S AHMED, MR. M A LASKAR

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 06.04.2026

¶18

(K.R Surana, J)

¶19

Heard, Mr. S. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard, Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI, Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate and Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the F.T. and N.R.C.

¶20

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Musstt. Kulsuma Begum, has assailed the impugned opinion dated 17.05.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal Nagaon 7^th , Lanka, Hojai, in F.T./L/ Case No. 1488/2018, corresponding to SP’s Case No.03/18, thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.

¶21

In view of the order of remand, which is proposed to be passed, this order need not be burdened with discussion on the pleadings and evidence on record. It would suffice to mention that on a perusal of the certified copy of the opinion dated 17.05.2019, there appears to be an error in issuing the certified copy. In the original opinion available in the Tribunal’s Records, which were called for, there are two sub-paragraphs in paragraph 3 of the opinion. In sub paragraph (i), there is a discussion on Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph 3, the Tribunal has discussed Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6. However, in

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

the certified copy which was issued on 06.06.2019, while reference is made to sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 3, but there is omission to include subparagraph (ii) of paragraph 3. However, instead paragraph 4 of the original opinion, the same is referred to as sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph 3 with the consequential error in the marking of the other paragraph nos. 5 to 9. In the original opinion, there are 9 (nine) paragraphs but in the certified copy, there are eight paragraphs.

¶24

That apart, it is noticed that the petitioner had examined herself as DW-1 and had exhibited 6 (six) documents and she had also examined one Oliur Rahman, son of late Mojor Ali, as DW2, by filing evidence on affidavit on 13.03.2019 and the said witness was also orally examined on 13.03.2019. However, in the impugned opinion, although the learned Tribunal had referred to the deposition of DW-2, but there is no discussion on the evidence of DW-2. 5. Accordingly, in view of the non discussion of the evidence of DW2, the impugned opinion dated 17.05.2019 is found to be vitiated.

¶25

The Court is of the considered opinion that once the witness comes and his evidence is recorded, it would be incumbent on the part of the learned Foreigner’s Tribunal to discuss the said evidence in the opinion.

¶26

Resultantly, the impugned opinion is found to be vitiated and therefore, matter is remanded back for a fresh opinion by the learned Member Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon 7^th , Lanka, Hojai.

¶27

In order to facilitate the fresh opinion, the impugned opinion dated 17.05.2019, passed by learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal Nagaon 7^th , Lanka, Hojai, is hereby set aside.

¶28

The petitioner, who is duly represented by learned Counsel, is directed to appear before the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal Nagaon 7^th , Lanka, Hojai

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

on or before 22.05.2026 and by producing the certified copy of the order, await for further orders to be passed by the said learned Tribunal.

¶31

It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to appear before the said learned Tribunal within the time allowed, it would be open to the learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and pass appropriate order or fresh opinion by discussing the pleadings and evidence on record.

¶32

The writ petition stands allowed to extent as indicated above by remanding the matter back for fresh opinion.

¶33

The Registry shall send back the Tribunals records expeditiously along with a copy of this order to be made a part of record by the said learned Tribunal.

¶34

There shall be no order as to cost.

¶35

JUDGE JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Kulsuma Begum v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulsuma Begum 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

Md. Rafiqul Islam Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Nur Ahmed Alias Nur Ahmed Mazumder Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Dhananjoy Das Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Akbar Ali Alias Akabbar Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Piyarun Nessa Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Golap Uddin Alias Golab Uddin Vs the Union of India