Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 553 (GAU)

Bhusan Chandra Paul v. Union of India

2016-06-14

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2016
ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. G. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Central Government and Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned Government Advocate, Assam. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek quashing of order dated 28.06.1991 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon in FT Case No. 499/1988 declaring the petitioners to be foreigners who had illegally entered into India (Assam) during the period 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971. 2. At the outset learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that after filing of the writ petition, petitioner No. 1 expired. Therefore the present writ petition would be confined to petitioner No. 2. 3. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.06.1991 would go to show that a reference was made by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon under the Foreigners Act, 1946 alleging that petitioners had illegally entered into India (Assam) from East Pakistan during the period 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 and on the basis of the said reference FT Case No. 499/1988 was registered. Notice issued by the Tribunal was served on the petitioners whereafter they appeared before the Tribunal on 1.11.1988, 24.6.1989 and 28.8.1989. On the first day of appearance petitioners stated that they had another IM(D) T Case No. 306/1988 pending before the IMDT Tribunal. However petitioners remained absent thereafter compelling the Tribunal to proceed ex-parte. On behalf of the State, the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police adduced evidence whereafter Tribunal held that petitioners had illegally entered into India (Assam) from East Pakistan during the period 01.06.1966 to 25.03.1971. Thus as would be evident, after the last appearance of the petitioners on 28.08.1989, Tribunal passed the impugned order after almost two years. 4. What is apparent from the above is that firstly there was default on the part of the petitioners in appearing before the Tribunal leading to passing of ex-parte order. Secondly, this writ petition has been filed almost 25 years after passing of the impugned order dated 28.06.1991. There is no averment in the writ petition explaining non-appearance of the petitioners before the Tribunal. Regarding delay in approaching the writ Court it is stated that petitioners were not aware of the order dated 28.06.1991. It is also stated that in the midst of the reference proceeding they had gone to Tripura in search of livelihood. There is no averment in the writ petition explaining non-appearance of the petitioners before the Tribunal. Regarding delay in approaching the writ Court it is stated that petitioners were not aware of the order dated 28.06.1991. It is also stated that in the midst of the reference proceeding they had gone to Tripura in search of livelihood. Besides, their engaged Counsel did not inform them about the order dated 28.06.1991. 5. We are afraid we can accept such submission made on behalf of the petitioners. Default of the petitioners before the Tribunal has remained un-explained. In addition, there is inordinate delay of about 25 years in challenging the impugned order dated 28.6.1991. The explanation given to justify such delay as noticed above, is completely untenable. In such circumstances we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. A Full Bench of this Court in State of Assam v. Muslim Mondal reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809 had examined the question as to whether an application filed by a foreigner under Sub-Section (3) of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 read with Rule 19 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 can be entertained beyond the time limit prescribed by Rule 19 for registration. Analyzing the provisions of Section 6A, the Full Bench held that if a foreigner belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream fails to get himself/herself registered before the registering authority within the stipulated period, which at the relevant point of time was 30 days extendable by another 60 days, they would be treated as foreigners for all purposes, liable to be deported. 6. On thorough consideration of the matter, we do not find any good ground to entertain the writ petition. 7. Writ petition is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned Government Advocate, Assam for information of the concerned Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police (Border).