Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1049 (GAU)

Kadbhanu @ Bhanu Begum v. Union of Indian

2015-08-18

P.K.SAIKIA, RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.06.2006, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Darrang at Mangaldoi in FT Case No. 244/2005 (arising out of SP Enquiry No. 7612/98, Kadbhanu @ Bhanu Begum v. State of Assam) declaring the appellant to be a foreigner as well as the judgment dated 14.03.2014 rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 21/2014 refusing to interfere with the judgment of the Foreigners Tribunal on holding that such a judgment does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal are that a reference had been made to the Foreigners Tribunal, Darrang at Mangaldoi suspecting the appellant to be a foreigner. On the basis of such reference, FT Case No. 244/2005 was registered. According to the appellant, after registration of the case, the learned Foreigners Tribunal, without serving notice on the appellant, ordered that the FT Case No. 244/2005 would proceed ex-parte and thereafter, it declared the petitioner as a foreigner vide ex-parte order dated 02.06.2006. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WP(C) No. 21/2014. This Writ Court issued notice and on hearing the parties was pleased to dismiss the same on holding that the Writ petitioner filed the proceeding aforesaid suppressing very material facts having enormous bearing on the outcome of the WP(C) No. 21/2014. Said proceeding was also dismissed since no explanation was rendered as to why such a proceeding was to have filed after a gap of almost eight years from the date on which order impugned therein was passed. 4. Alleging that the order aforesaid was bad in law, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that Msstt. Kadbhanu @ Bhanu Begum is one and same person and her name appears in the Electoral Roll of 1965. Being so, she is an Indian citizen and she should not/could not have been declared as a foreigner as has been done by the learned Tribunal under its order dated 02.06.2006. 5. Despite above, the Foreigners Tribunal chose to declare the appellant to be a foreigner which was again affirmed by this Court in WP(C) No. 21/2014 vide order dated 14.03.2014. 5. Despite above, the Foreigners Tribunal chose to declare the appellant to be a foreigner which was again affirmed by this Court in WP(C) No. 21/2014 vide order dated 14.03.2014. The appellant, therefore, urges this Court to set aside the judgments in question and to remand the case to the learned Tribunal for fresh trial in accordance with law. 6. The above contention, was, however, objected to by Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Asstt. SGI stating that the judgment in question cannot be assailed since the petitioner has tried to play tricks with the courts by suppressing some very material facts having huge implications on the outcome of WP(C) No. 21/2014 which is well evident from the paragraph No. 2, 3 and 4 of the judgment under challenge. 7. In support of such contention, it has been pointed out that the appellant in her petition in WP(C) No. 21/2014 took a categorical stand that she had never been served with notice issued on her in connection with FT Case No. 244/2005. But a perusal of record of the Tribunal learned Single Judge has found that such a stand was not correct since the record clearly demonstrates that notice in connection with aforementioned proceeding was duly served on the petitioner/appellant. 8. What is important to note is that having received the summons so issued, she entered appearance, filed WS on 05.01.2006 supported by some documents as well. But then, she never turned up thereafter to contest the proceeding for which learned Tribunal was forced to decide the matter ex-parte declaring the appellant/petitioner to be a foreign national. In-spite of above, while approaching the Writ Court, she chose to claim that she was never served with notice. 9. Since the appellant/petitioner suppressed such vital information while presenting the petition aforesaid before this Court, learned Single Judge was compelled to conclude that the petitioner in approaching the Writ court suppressed very material facts and as such, it refused to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the court conferred on it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. According to learned Asstt. SGI, learned Single Judge also dismissed the proceeding in question on the ground that said proceeding was filed with a delay of almost eight years from the date of impugned judgment but without assigning any reason as to why such a proceeding was filed with such delay. 10. According to learned Asstt. SGI, learned Single Judge also dismissed the proceeding in question on the ground that said proceeding was filed with a delay of almost eight years from the date of impugned judgment but without assigning any reason as to why such a proceeding was filed with such delay. Therefore, one cannot find fault with the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the proceeding aforesaid. Before we proceed further, let us have a look at the judgment under challenge. The relevant part thereof is reproduced below for ready reference:- "This writ petition is directed against the order dated 02.06.2006, passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Darrang, Mangalgoi in FT Case No. 244/2005 (SP Enquiry No. 7612/1998) [ Must. Kadbhanu @ Bhanu Begum v. State of Assam]. Apart from the fact that there is delay of more than seven years in challenging the said order (writ petition filed on 21.12.2013), there is also misrepresentation of facts towards assailing the impugned order. As stated in the writ petition, the notice from the tribunal was received by one Md. Abul Kazam and as such, the petitioner was not aware of the proceeding before the tribunal. It has been stated that since she did not receive notice, she could not appear before the tribunal and filed written statements. Such stand on the part of the petitioner is in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. However, on perusal of the records received from the tribunal, it is seen that the notice was received by the petitioner and not only that, she also filed her written statements on 05.01.2006 and also submitted photocopies of some documents. Above being the position, there is material suppression of fact and on that score alone, it is liable to be dismissed. There is also unexplained delay in filing the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Registry shall transmit the case record to the learned Tribunal along with a copy of this order. The authority shall now take the necessary and follow up action in the matter." 11. We have considered the rival submissions, having regard to the judgment under challenge and found that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing very material facts having enormous bearing on the dispute projected through the aforesaid writ petition. The authority shall now take the necessary and follow up action in the matter." 11. We have considered the rival submissions, having regard to the judgment under challenge and found that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing very material facts having enormous bearing on the dispute projected through the aforesaid writ petition. In our opinion, Writ Court was wholly justified in dismissing the aforesaid proceeding since a person who comes to the Writ Court with dirty hands cannot expect any relief to be granted by such a court. 12. This is more so, when the attempt to hoodwink the truth from the notice of the court in order to get some reliefs, which such a petitioner is apparently not entitled to, is found well apparent even from a cursory look into the petition of such a person. That being the position, we have found no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in refusing to interfere with the judgment of the Foreigners Tribunal rendered on 02.06.2006 in F.T. Case No. 244/2005 (arising out of SP Enquiry No. 7612/98, Kadbhanu @ Bhanu Begum v. State of Assam). 13. Even otherwise, the petition in question needs to be rejected. It is a settled law that apart from the requirement of coming to the Writ Court with clean hands, a person who approaches the Writ Court, seeking some equitable relief, must come without any delay. Unfortunately, in the case in hand, the petitioner chose to come to the Court after a gap of almost 8 years from the date on which learned Tribunal rendered the judgment declaring the petitioner to be a foreign national. 14. Such inordinate delay, in our considered opinion, in coming to the Writ Court seeking quashment of judgment rendered on 02.06.2006 in F.T. Case No. 244/2005 (arising out of SP Enquiry No. 7612/98, Kadbhanu @ Bhanu Begum v. State of Assam) without even assigning any reason is found to be quite fatal and on this count alone, the proceeding in question was required to be dismissed. 15. In view of our forgoing discussion, we have found no infirmity in the judgment under challenge and therefore, appeal is accordingly dismissed. 16. The authority shall now take follow up action as ordered by the learned Single Judge. 17. Transmit the LCR if same is called for with a copy of this order to the learned Tribunal for doing needful.