Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 922 (GAU)

Sekandar Ali v. Union of India

2009-12-22

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.9.2008 by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh in FT case No. 33/2006, declaring the petitioner to a foreign national entering into Assam after the cut-off-date i.e. 25.3.1971. 2. I have heard Mr. N. Choudhury along with Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel representing the Union of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs. I have also heard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, assam 3. The records of the Tribunal have been received and I have carefully scrutinised the same. 4. The case against the petitioner was registered on the basis of the reference made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Dibrugarh. Such reference was on the basis of the enquiry conducted. During the enquiry, the petitioner made a statement on 28.4.2001 stating that he had come from Bangladesh during his childhood along with his parents. At the time of taking the statement, his age was 20 years. 5. The petitioner on receipt of notice from the Tribunal entered appearance arid submitted written statement. In the written statement,' his plea was that the name of his grand father and maternal grand father appeared in the voter list of 1971 and 1965. In the verification made in support of the written statement, the petitioner has declared his age as 35 years, but could not submit any document including voter list containing his name. 6. The petitioner in his statement as DW 1 while giving particulars, named his father as Late Sayab Ali but in the deposition he named his father as Naimuddin Sheikh. In another place, he again named his father as Sabar Ali. At the time of deposition, he produced two documents, one dated 11.12.2002 certifying one Sekam Ali S/o. Late Sabur Ali, as the resident of the particular locality. The second document is a voter list of 1971 mentioning two names i.e. Naimuddin S/o Karim and Safia Khatun W/o Naimuddin, whom he identified as his grandmother. As noted above, Naimuddin was identified as his father. Thus, the whole basis of the claim of the petitioner was that name of his father Naimuddin appeared in the voter list of 1971. However, in the proceeding before the Tribunal, the petitioner was described as Md. Sekandar Ali S/o Late Sabar Ali. As noted above, Naimuddin was identified as his father. Thus, the whole basis of the claim of the petitioner was that name of his father Naimuddin appeared in the voter list of 1971. However, in the proceeding before the Tribunal, the petitioner was described as Md. Sekandar Ali S/o Late Sabar Ali. In the statement made during the enquiry also, the petitioner named his father as Sabar Ali. However, in the written statement filed on 28.8.2003 before the IMDT, the petitioner named one Sayab Ali as his maternal grand father claiming that his name appeared in the voter list of 1965. But, as noted above, in the deposition made on 20.8.2008 as DW 1, the petitioner named his father as Naimuddin Sheikh and in support of that, also produced the voter list of 1971 containing the name; of one Naimuddin and Safia Khatun as wife of Naimuddin. However, as per the proceeding before the Tribunal, the name of his mother in Ashiya Khatun. 7. All the above discrepancies have been noted by the Tribunal in its impugned judgment and order. 8. DW 1 is the mother of the petitioner. She in her deposition, named her father as Late Amid Ali but as per her written statement, her father is Sayab Ali. As recorded by the Tribunal, the petitioner could not produce any evidence to prove the documents. The copy of the Jamabandi, which was produced, also did not indicate any name linking the petitioner to the same. 9. Based on the above materials, the definite finding of the Tribunal is that the petitioner alongwith his mother had come to India after 25.3.1971. 10. Above being the position, ho interference is called for that too exercising writ jurisdiction in the finding of the fact arrived at by the Tribunal vide is impugned judgment and order dated 19.9.2008, passed in FT case No. 33/2006 (State v. Md. Sekandar Ali). Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall now be taken into custody by the Superintendent of Police (B), Dibrugarh, immediately and be kept in detention camp/jail till such time, deported/pushed back to Bangladesh. The Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, shall ensure deletion of his name from voter list, if his name has been included in any of the voter list 11. Let the compliance report be furnished on or before 29.1.20100, on which date the matter shall be listed again. 12. The Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, shall ensure deletion of his name from voter list, if his name has been included in any of the voter list 11. Let the compliance report be furnished on or before 29.1.20100, on which date the matter shall be listed again. 12. Let copies of this judgment and order be sent immediately to Superintendent of Police (B), the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh and Union of India in the Home Ministry. Another copy be furnished to Ms. R. Chakraborthy, learned State counsel, for the necessary followed up action. 13. Registry shall send down the LCR immediately alongwith the copy of this judgment and order.