Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 560 (GAU)

Salema Bibi v. Union of India

2009-08-12

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4.9.2008, passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Goalpara in FT Case No. 936/G/2006. She has also questioned the legality and validity of the Quit India Notice dated 11.11.2008, served on her directing her to leave India within the specified period. 2. By the aforesaid impugned order dated 4.9.2008 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Goalpara in FT Case No. 936/G/2006, the suspected foreigner involved therein, namely Sulekha Bibi, has been declared to be a foreigner to be deported from India. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is not Sulekha Bibi but her name is Salema Bibi (Khatun), wife of Abul Kalam. According to the petitioner, both the notice from the Tribunal as well as the Quit India Notice dated 11.11.2008 have been served on her by force by the police. 4. I have heard Mr. A. Manaf, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate. I have also gone through the records of the Tribunal. 5. The whole basis of the case of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 4.9.2008 passed by the Tribunal is not applicable to her and so also the consequential Quit India Notice dated 11.11.2008. As stated above, it is the case of the petitioner that the particular reference before the Tribunal was pertaining to one Sulekha Bibi, and not Salema Bibi (Khatun), i.e. the petitioner. 6. I have verified the records of the Tribunal which revealed that the notice in respect of the reference was issued in the name of Sulekha Bibi, wife of Abul Kalam, Village-Gumaijhar, The notice was received by the noticee i.e. Sulekha Bibi. As per the notice, the next date was fixed on 29.7.2008. However, on that day, the matter was refixed on 13.8.2008. On that date, the petitioner describing herself to be Salema Bibi appeared before the Tribunal and filed an application stating that her name is not Sulekha Bibi, but Salema Bibi, wife of Abul Kalam of village Gumaijhar. Seeing the petition, the Tribunal rightly observed that if the petitioner was not Sulekha Bibi, it was none of her business to appear before the Tribunal. Seeing the petition, the Tribunal rightly observed that if the petitioner was not Sulekha Bibi, it was none of her business to appear before the Tribunal. The matter was again fixed on 4.9.2008, on which date the petitioner did not appear and accordingly the Tribunal passed the ex-parte order declaring the noticee Sulekha Bibi, wife of Abul Kalam of Village-Gumaijhar, to be a foreigner (illegal Bangladeshi migrant). 7. If the petitioner is not Sulekha Bibi, as has been rightly observed by the Tribunal, she ought not to have appeared before he Tribunal and nobody forced her to do so. The story of the petitioner that the notice was forcefully served on her on both the occasions i.e. the notice from the Tribunal and the Quit India Notice, is not all believable. If the notice did not concern the petitioner, it was none of her business to accept the same and so also the Quit India Notice. For such foreign national, it has become a matter of convenience to describe oneself by different names resembling the names in the particular documents, which are commonly made use of to prove Indian citizenship. 8. What has happened in this case is that the petitioner is also known as Sulekha Bibi @ Salema Bibi (Khatun). In support of her claim that she is Salema Bibi (Khatun), and not Sulekha Bibi, she has produced before the Tribunal certain documents, such as, voter list of 2005 and 2007, purportedly containing her name. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has declared her age as 42 years. If that be so, her name would have appeared in many other documents apart from the voter list but she could produce the copies of the voter list of 2005 and 2007, only containing the name of one Salema Bibi. Such documents do not establish her Indian citizenship, burden being heavy under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to establish the linkage to pre 25.3.1971 period. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Superintendent of Police, Goalpara, is directed to take into custody Sulekha Bibi, in whose name the proceeding was initiated and concluded and keep her in custody till such time, deported to Bangladesh. 10. List on 14.9.2009 for furnishing compliance report by Superintendent of Police, Goalpara. 11. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Superintendent of Police, Goalpara, is directed to take into custody Sulekha Bibi, in whose name the proceeding was initiated and concluded and keep her in custody till such time, deported to Bangladesh. 10. List on 14.9.2009 for furnishing compliance report by Superintendent of Police, Goalpara. 11. Let copies of this judgment and order be sent to Union of India and the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara immediately and. another copy be furnished to Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for necessary follow up action. 12. Send the LCR to the Tribunal immediately. It appears that the LCR also contain the LCR of FT Case No. 1130/G/2006 pertaining to which the writ petition being WP (C) No. 1166/2009 has been filed and disposed off today.