Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 868 (GAU)

Badal Mazumdar v. Union of India

2016-09-16

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2016
ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. Dhar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam and Ms. G Sharma, learned counsel for the Central Government. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Dibrugarh to register the name of the petitioner under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 2. On a reference made by the State under the Foreigners Act, 1946, with the allegation that petitioner was a foreigner having illegally entered into India (Assam) between 1.1.1966 to 24.3.1971, F.T. Case No. 47/2000 was registered in the Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh. Notice issued by the Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh (Tribunal) was served on the petitioner who thereafter appeared before the Tribunal along with his advocate on 16.08.2001. However, petitioner sought for time to file written statement. But in spite of granting adequate opportunity by the Tribunal, petitioner neither filed written statement nor adduced any evidence. Ultimately, Tribunal decided to proceed ex parte against the petitioner and fixed 11.09.2001 for ex parte order. On that day also, petitioner remained absent without steps. After perusal of the record and on due consideration, Tribunal came to the conclusion that petitioner did not discharge his burden to prove that he was not a foreigner but an Indian citizen. Accordingly, petitioner was declared to be a foreigner. He was granted two months time to register his name before the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Dibrugarh. 3. Such a direction by the Tribunal implied that petitioner was declared to be a foreigner belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971 stream. Though this order was passed on 11.09.2001, petitioner did not register himself before the Registering Officer. As a result, Superintendent of Police (B), Dibrugarh passed an order on 28.07.2003 directing the petitioner to leave India within two weeks and thereafter not to re-enter India. 4. At that stage, petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 6575/2003. Initially, on 26.08.2003, notice was issued and the order of the Tribunal dated 11.09.2001 was suspended. Thereafter, the writ petition was finally disposed of on 28.09.2005. Petitioner was directed to get himself registered under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, as amended, within a period of one month. To that extent, order of the Tribunal was modified. 5. Initially, on 26.08.2003, notice was issued and the order of the Tribunal dated 11.09.2001 was suspended. Thereafter, the writ petition was finally disposed of on 28.09.2005. Petitioner was directed to get himself registered under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, as amended, within a period of one month. To that extent, order of the Tribunal was modified. 5. From a perusal of the said order, it is seen that the said order was passed on consent of both the parties. 6. Notwithstanding the above order of this Court dated 28.09.2005, petitioner did not register himself before the Registering Officer. It is stated that in the month of August, 2015, some police men came to his residence asking for documents relating to his citizenship. Thereafter, he contacted his counsel who informed him about the final order of the Court dated 28.09.2005. 7. It is stated that petitioner thereafter submitted an application before the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Dibrugarh on 11.09.2015 to register his name as a foreigner belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971 stream under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 8. Petitioner states that since time limit for registration has expired, the registering authority did not register his name. Therefore, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 9. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an illiterate person and did not understand the legal implications of non-registration. Therefore, one last opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to get his name registered as a foreigner belonging to the said stream. 10. We are afraid; we can accept such untenable contention of the petitioner. 11. From the documents placed on record, it is seen that upon receipt of notice issued by the Tribunal, petitioner had appeared before the Tribunal with an advocate but he neither filed written statement nor adduced evidence compelling the Tribunal to proceed ex parte. Tribunal passed the order dated 11.9.2001 holding the petitioner to be a foreigner but gave him liberty to get his name registered in the office of the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Dibrugarh within two months. Petitioner neither challenged this order nor complied with the same. Tribunal passed the order dated 11.9.2001 holding the petitioner to be a foreigner but gave him liberty to get his name registered in the office of the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Dibrugarh within two months. Petitioner neither challenged this order nor complied with the same. When the Superintendent of Police (B), Dibrugarh issued Quit India notice on 28.07.2003, petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 6575/2003 which was disposed of on 28.09.2005 on consent by modifying the order of the Tribunal dated 11.09.2001 and allowing the petitioner to get himself registered within one month. This time also, petitioner did not comply with the order of this Court dated 28.09.2005. After more than 10 years, he has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Dibrugarh to register his name. 12. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 which was inserted into the Act by way of amendment in the year 1985 following signing of Assam Accord in the year 1985 has made the following classifications: 1. Those persons of Indian origin coming from the specified territory and had entered India (Assam) up-to 01.01.1966 would be deemed to be Indian citizens; 2. Those who have entered into India (Assam) between 1.1.1966 to 24.3.1971 would be treated as foreigners but upon registration as a foreigner belonging to the said stream, such person would be disenfranchised for 10 years whereafter they would be regularized as Indian citizens with all attending rights and obligations; and 3. Those entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971 would be treated as foreigners and liable to be deported. 13. A Full Bench of this Court in State Vs. Moslem Mondal, reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809, has held that a person belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971 stream is a foreigner but subject to registration and initial dis-enfranchisement for 10 years, he would be regularized as a citizen of India But if he fails to register himself as a foreigner belonging to the said stream within the prescribed period or within such extended period as may be prescribed, he would not be entitled to the benefit following registration. In other words, he would be a foreigner and liable to be deported from India. 14. In other words, he would be a foreigner and liable to be deported from India. 14. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is more than evident that petitioner was totally negligent and did not show any seriousness either before the Tribunal or subsequent to the order passed by this Court. Such conduct of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. Since petitioner did not register himself as a foreigner belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971 stream for more than 15 years, legal consequences as explained by the Full Bench in Moslem Mondal (supra) would follow. Petitioner's plea of illiteracy does not hold water as all throughout he was represented by his counsel who appeared on his behalf. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Registry to inform the concerned Foreigners Tribunal, Superintendent of Police (Border) and Deputy Commissioner for taking immediate follow-up action.