Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1081 (GAU)

Ashutosh Das v. Union of India

2018-07-23

A.K.GOSWAMI, M.R.PATHAK

body2018
ORDER : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. G. Sarma, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. J. Payeng learned special standing counsel, Foreigners Tribunal, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2. 5, 6 & 7, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel, Election Commission of India, appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel, NRC, appearing for the respondent No. 4. 2. A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon as to whether Hari Narayan Das, Swarnalata Das and other family members including the petitioner had entered into India (Assam) within 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971. Petitioner claims to be the son of Late Hari Narayan Das. 3. Accordingly, a Reference was registered as F.T. Case No. 1633/1988. Subsequently, on receipt of notice, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed written statement. The learned Tribunal decided the aforesaid F.T. Case by a judgment and order dated 23.3.1993 holding the petitioner along with his parents to be foreigners of 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971 stream. The learned Tribunal also opined that there is no authentic evidence in respect of the death of the parents of the petitioner, namely, Hari Narayan Das and Swarnalata Das. Having answered the Reference as aforesaid, the learned Tribunal directed the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon, to be informed accordingly. 4. Mr. Biswas submits that by the aforesaid order, no direction was issued for registering the name of the petitioner before the concerned Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Nagaon. It is submitted by him that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that he has to register himself before the appropriate authority and, as such, he did not register himself before the concerned Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Nagaon. Mr. Biswas submits that the petitioners were taken into custody on 31.05.2018. 5. It is further submitted by Mr. Biswas that in similar circumstances, this Court, in WP(C) No. 2295/2014 (Pronoti Bala Sarkar & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.), decided on 11.09.2017 (Annexure P-1), had permitted the petitioners in the said case to approach the Foreigners' Regional Registration Officer for their registration as foreigners belonging to the 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971 stream and, accordingly, he prays for a similar direction in this case. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.), decided on 11.09.2017 (Annexure P-1), had permitted the petitioners in the said case to approach the Foreigners' Regional Registration Officer for their registration as foreigners belonging to the 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971 stream and, accordingly, he prays for a similar direction in this case. It is further submitted by him that the petitioners' brother Dilip Das was also declared to be a foreigner, who came into Assam in between 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971, by the same impugned order in the very same case, i.e. F.T. Case No. 1633/1988. He had approached this Court in WP(C) No. 4054/2018 and this Court by order dated 19.7.2018 had disposed of the said case in terms of the order in terms of the order passed in Pronoti Bala Sarkar (supra). Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not object to passing of a similar order, as prayed for by Mr. Biswas. In Pronoti Bala Sarkar (supra), it was observed by this court as follows: "*** *** *** As per Section 6A(3) and (4) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended, every person of Indian origin, who came to Assam during the period from 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971 from the specified territory; has been ordinarily resident in Assam since them; and who has been declared to be a foreigner of the said stream by competent Foreigners' Tribunal, would have to get himself registered before the competent registering authority and upon such registration, he would stand disenfranchised for a period of 10 years though he would continue to enjoy other rights and privileges as a citizen of India. After expiry of the period of 10 years, he would also regain his voting rights. As per Rule 19 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009, the period of registration is 30 days, which may be extended up-to 60 days and, in exceptional cases, up-to 180 days by the registering authority. In Moslem Mondal (supra), the Full Bench has held that if there is failure of a person declared to be a foreigner of the said stream to get himself registered within the prescribed period or within the extended period, he would be liable to face the consequence, including deportation, he being admittedly a foreigner. Of course the periods as prescribed under Rule 19 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 is applicable to the registering authorities. Of course the periods as prescribed under Rule 19 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 is applicable to the registering authorities. In an appropriate case, as explained in Moslem Mondal (supra), a high Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may permit registration even beyond the period so prescribed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice to permit the petitioners to get themselves registered as foreigners belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream even at this belated stage. Let the petitioners approach the Foreigners' Regional Registration Officer, Nagaon, within a period of 30 days from today and upon approach being made within the above, period, Foreigners' Regional Registration Officer, Nagaon, shall pass appropriate order of registration. After registering petitioners as foreigners belonging to the said stream, the legal consequences shall follow." 6. Having regard to the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the judgment rendered in Pronoti Bala Sarkar (supra), we are also of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the petitioner is allowed to get himself registered as a foreigner belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream even at this point of time. 7. The petitioners shall be released from custody without any delay. 8. The petitioner will approach the Foreigners' Regional Registration Officer, Nagaon, within a period of 30 (thirty) days from today and, upon such approach being made within the above period, the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Nagaon, shall pass appropriate order of registration. After registration of the petitioner as a foreigner belonging to the 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971 stream, the legal consequences will follow. If, however, the petitioner does not approach the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Nagaon within the aforesaid period of 30(thirty) days, the petitioner will be liable to be deported from India. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.