Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 869 (GAU)

Bela Rani Das v. Union of India

2015-07-21

B.K.SHARMA

body2015
JUDGEMENT : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30/04/2003, by which the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon has declared the petitioners to be foreigners within the stream of 01-01-1966 to 25/03/1971, requiring them to register themselves as such. The order was passed in FT Case No.3491/1998 and is an exparte one. 2. Although in response to the notice received from the Tribunal, the petitioners appeared and prayed for time but due to their non-appearance on all subsequent dates, the reference was posted for exparte hearing. Eventually, vide the exparte order dated 30/04/2003, the petitioners were declared to be foreign nationals. 3. After the said order, the petitioners were served with Quit India Notice in 2008. Thereafter, they appeared before the jurisdictional Police Station in which their particulars were obtained. 4. Although in the writ petition, the petitioners hare urged various grounds and have also placed reliance on certain documents so as to contend that they are Indian citizens but this Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot appreciate the evidence and/ or the documents. The petitioners were given adequate opportunity to defend their case but they failed to do so. According to the petitioners, they are all Indian citizens and the Tribunal has committed manifest error of law in declaring them as foreigners within the stream of 01-01-1996 to 25/03/1971. 5. It appears that in response to the notice received from the Tribunal, the petitioners entered appearance filed written statement, inter alia, contending that their husband and father respectively had migrated from the then East Pakistan in 1951 and started living in Assam and also obtain Citizenship Certificate vide Sl. No. 407 dated 10/06/1968. However, in absence of any evidence adduced by the petitioners, the Tribunal passed the impugned exparte order on 30/04/2003. Thereafter they were served with the Quit India Notice in 2008. Being aggrieved they filed the instant writ petition. 6. During the course of hearing, Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that given an opportunity, the petitioners would register themselves before the Registering Authority. On the other hand, Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI and Ms. K.M. Talukdar, learned State Counsel submit that for registration, certain formalities are required to be observed. As regards such Registration, a Full Bench of this Court in 2013 (1) GLT 809 (State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mandal) has held thus. “111. G. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI and Ms. K.M. Talukdar, learned State Counsel submit that for registration, certain formalities are required to be observed. As regards such Registration, a Full Bench of this Court in 2013 (1) GLT 809 (State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mandal) has held thus. “111. 1956 Rules as well as 2009 Rules, as noticed above, provide the initial time limit for filing application for registration, i.e. 1(one) month, which is extendable by another 60 days by the registering authority. Though there is no time limit prescribed in Section 6A of the 1955 Act for filing such application, having regard to the purpose for which Section 6A of the 1955 Act has been enacted, it also cannot be said that the fixation of time limit for filing the application has no bearing on the purpose sought to be achieved by such enactment. However, such time limit can be extended by the registering authority, only under very exceptional circumstances preventing the applicant from filing the application due to reasons beyond his control, for which the reasons have to be recorded by the registering authority. But such extension of time cannot also be for an indefinite period of time, having regard to the object of the enactment of Section 6A of the 1955 Act. A person who does not register within the time limit fixed or within the time limit that may be extended by the registering authority, is liable to be deported from India as he is admittedly a foreigner and he has not acquired the right of a citizen of India as has been acquired by a person of Indian origin who came to Assam from the specified territory prior to 1.1.1966, by virtue of the deeming provision in sub-section (2) of Section 6A of the 1955 Act.” 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Registering Authority to get their names registered within 20th August, 2015. On such approach being made, the Registering Authority shall do the needful taking note of all the attending facts and circumstances and in accordance with law and also considering the fact that the Quit India Notice was served on the petitioners in 2008 and certain formalities were served after their appearance in the Police Station. On such approach being made, the Registering Authority shall do the needful taking note of all the attending facts and circumstances and in accordance with law and also considering the fact that the Quit India Notice was served on the petitioners in 2008 and certain formalities were served after their appearance in the Police Station. However, in the event of failure of the petitioners to approach the Registering Authority within the stipulated time, the consequence thereof will follow. 8. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Registry shall send down the case records to the learned Tribunal below along with a copy of this judgement and order.