Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 743 (GAU)

Anowar Ali v. State of Assam

2018-05-04

AJIT BORTHAKUR, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2018
ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. This appeal was heard on 09.04.2018 and today is fixed for delivery of order. We have heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Senior Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal (FT). 2. Four appellants have joined together and have filed the present appeal. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife whereas appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are their sons. 3. In this appeal they have challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 25.05.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition WP(C) No. 1043/2013 filed by the appellants. 4. A brief narration of facts would be in order. 5. A reference was made under Section 8(1) of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act) by the then Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon with the allegation that appellants were illegal migrants as defined under the said Act. 6. Be it stated that under Section 3(1)(C) of the IMDT Act, an illegal migrant was defined as a foreigner who had unauthorizedly entered into India after 25.03.1971. This reference was registered as Case No. IMDT/H/683/1991 before the Illegal Migrants (D) Tribunal, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar. The reference was duly contested by the appellants. 7. After hearing the matter, Illegal Migrants (D) Tribunal, Hojai vide the order dated 17.06.2005 answered the reference in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the State by declaring the appellants to be illegal migrants from Bangladesh who had entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. 8. Appellants did not challenge the aforesaid order dated 17.06.2005 before the appellate Tribunal as provided under the IMDT Act. 9. In the meanwhile, IMDT Act and the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 (IMDT Rules) framed thereunder were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 . 10. Six years after their declaration as illegal migrants, appellants approached this court by filing a writ petition which was registered as WP(C) No. 242/2011 assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 17.06.2005 passed by the Illegal Migrants (D) Tribunal, Hojai. Learned Single Judge after elaborately examining the entire matter and re-appreciating the evidence on record, did not find any ground in the writ petition to warrant interference with the order dated 17.06.2005 and accordingly vide judgment and order dated 21.04.2011, dismissed the writ petition. 11. Learned Single Judge after elaborately examining the entire matter and re-appreciating the evidence on record, did not find any ground in the writ petition to warrant interference with the order dated 17.06.2005 and accordingly vide judgment and order dated 21.04.2011, dismissed the writ petition. 11. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.04.2011 appellants preferred Writ Appeal No. 148/2011. By order dated 15.09.2011, Writ Appeal No. 148/2011 was disposed of. A Division Bench of this Court took note of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra) and observed that in a number of cases, proceedings were remitted to the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. Accordingly, vide order dated 15.09.2011, the matter was remitted to the Foreigners Tribunal at Sankardev Nagar, Hojai. 12. On remand, Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar took up the matter but appellants were not present. A petition was filed on their behalf by their counsel. Finding the petition to be not satisfactory, Tribunal rejected the same vide order dated 19.10.2011. 13. This led to filing of the related writ petition for setting aside the order dated 19.10.2011 and for releasing the appellants from detention. The said writ petition was registered as WP(C) No. 1043/2013. 14. Learned Single Judge passed an order dated 05.03.2013 for placing the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consideration of the question as to whether orders passed by the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act till scrapping of the said Act would cease to exist in view of the decision in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), by a larger Bench. Thereafter, the said question was referred to a Full Bench. By the judgment and order dated 13.06.2014 a Full Bench of this Court answered the reference by holding that orders already passed by the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act would not cease to exist with the striking down of the IMDT Act by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. It was further held that it did not necessarily follow that all cases already decided by the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act prior to Sarbananda Sonowal (supra) would have to be decided afresh by the Foreigners Tribunals. It was further held that it did not necessarily follow that all cases already decided by the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act prior to Sarbananda Sonowal (supra) would have to be decided afresh by the Foreigners Tribunals. Clarifying further, Full Bench held that orders passed by the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act can be assailed by way of a writ petition and each writ petition has to be considered on its own merit in accordance with the principles governing exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question having been answered as above, Full Bench directed the Registry to place the writ petition i.e., WP(C) No. 1043/2013 before the Single Bench for consideration. This decision of the Full Bench is reported in 2014 (3) GLT 500, Anowar Ali Vs. State of Assam. 15. Thereafter, the writ petition was placed before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge vide the order dated 25.05.2015 dismissed the writ petition by holding that the second writ petition was not maintainable. Decision of the IMD Tribunal was examined by the writ Court and after due deliberation was affirmed. 16. It is against this decision of the learned Single Judge that the present appeal has been preferred. 17. Mr. Purkasthaya, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Division Bench order of this Court dated 15.09.2011 has remained unimplemented; therefore, it would be essential that the reference against the appellants be heard afresh by the Foreigners Tribunal. Thus, view taken by the learned Single Judge is not correct and requires interference. 18. On the other hand, Mr. Nair, learned Senior Special Counsel, supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He submits that the Division Bench order dated 15.09.2011 stood eclipsed by the Full Bench decision in Anowar Ali (supra). Therefore, there is error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the related writ petition. Writ appeal should accordingly be dismissed. 19. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record. 20. IMDT Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). For the purpose of adjudicating the present appeal, it may not be necessary for us to enter into an elaborate discussion of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). 19. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record. 20. IMDT Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). For the purpose of adjudicating the present appeal, it may not be necessary for us to enter into an elaborate discussion of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). Suffice it to say that though the ostensible object of the IMDT Act was to provide for establishment of Tribunals for determination of the question whether a person was an illegal migrant for not, having regard to the influx of a large number of foreigners into the North-Eastern region of the country, Supreme Court observed that the IMDT Act was structured in such a manner that detection of an illegal migrant was a near impossibility. The IMDT Act worked against the interest of the State. Provisions in the IMDT Act were so made that innumerable and insurmountable difficulties were created which made detection of illegal migrants next to impossible. Invoking Article 355 of the Constitution and for reasons mentioned in the judgment, Supreme Court declared IMDT Act as unconstitutional. In paragraph 83 of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), Supreme Court held thus:- "83. To sum up our conclusions, the provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 are ultra vires the Constitution and are accordingly struck down. The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 are also ultra vires and are struck down. As a result, the Tribunals and the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 shall cease to function. The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 and the Passport Act, 1967 shall apply to the State of Assam. All cases pending before the Tribunals under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983 shall stand transferred to the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and shall be decided in the manner provided in the Foreigners Act, the Rules made thereunder and the procedure prescribed under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. In view of the finding that the competent authority and the Screening Committee had no authority or jurisdiction to reject any proceedings initiated against any alleged illegal migrant, the orders of rejection passed by such authorities are declared to be void and non est in the eye of law. In view of the finding that the competent authority and the Screening Committee had no authority or jurisdiction to reject any proceedings initiated against any alleged illegal migrant, the orders of rejection passed by such authorities are declared to be void and non est in the eye of law. It will be open to the authorities of the Central Government or the State Government to initiate fresh proceedings under the Foreigners Act against all such persons whose cases were not referred to the Tribunals constituted under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 by the competent authority whether on account of the recommendation of the Screening Committee or any other, reason whatsoever. The appeals pending before the Appellate Tribunals shall be deemed to have abated." 21. Thereafter, Supreme Court issued the following directions:- "84. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with the following directions: (1) The provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 are declared to be ultra vires the Constitution and are struck down. (2) The Tribunals and the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 shall cease to function. (3) All cases pending before the Tribunals under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 shall stand transferred to the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and shall be decided in the manner provided in the Foreigners Act, the Rules made thereunder and the procedure prescribed under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. (4) It will be open to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings under the Foreigners Act against all such persons whose cases were not referred to the Tribunals by the competent authority whether on account of the recommendation of the Screening Committee or any other reason whatsoever. (5) All appeals pending before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to have abated. (6) The respondents are directed to constitute sufficient number of Tribunals under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to effectively deal with cases of foreigners, who have illegally come from Bangladesh or are illegally residing in Assam." 22. (5) All appeals pending before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to have abated. (6) The respondents are directed to constitute sufficient number of Tribunals under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to effectively deal with cases of foreigners, who have illegally come from Bangladesh or are illegally residing in Assam." 22. Thus, Supreme Court declared that the Tribunals and Appellate Tribunal constituted under the IMDT Act shall cease to function and the appeals pending before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to have abated, meaning thereby that the orders of the Tribunals declaring the proceedees as illegal migrants became final. It was further directed that all the references which were pending before the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act would stand transferred to the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to be decided as per provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the above Order of 1964. 23. Keeping the above in mind we may now advert to the question which was referred to the Full Bench in Anowar Ali (supra) which is as under:- "Whether the orders passed by the IMDT ceased to exist after declaration of Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 as unconstitutional by the Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2920 ? In other words, whether such proceedings, which had already been decided by the IMDT prior to such declaration, have to be decided by the Foreigners Tribunal afresh?" 24. At this stage we may point out that in Shanti Ranjan Dey Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2006 (4) GLT 716, a Single Bench of this Court held that all the writ petitions which were pending before this Court in which orders passed by the Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals under the IMDT Act were under challenge should be remanded to the Foreigners Tribunals for fresh hearing. State of Assam, reported in 2006 (4) GLT 716, a Single Bench of this Court held that all the writ petitions which were pending before this Court in which orders passed by the Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals under the IMDT Act were under challenge should be remanded to the Foreigners Tribunals for fresh hearing. It was held thus:- "Reason for this argument is that, if the Appellate Tribunal's order under challenge is upheld by this Court, the person concerned shall have no option subject to interference by the highest Court but only is to be deported under Act when the same itself is not in force and hence such act will be highly prejudicial to him infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India which are promised not only to a citizen but also to a non-citizen. On the other hand, if the appellate judgment and order is set aside and remanded, the petitioner/petitioners shall be devoid of any legal forum due to abatement of the Appellate Tribunals." 25. Thereafter, the Single Bench in Shanti Ranjan Dey (supra) remanded the writ petitions to the Foreigners Tribunals for fresh decision. 26. This view taken in Shanti Ranjan Dey (supra) was subsequently applied by a Division Bench of this Court in Keramat Ali Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2008 (1) GLT 947. 27. Responding to the decision in Shanti Ranjan Dey (supra) and Keramat Ali (supra), the Full Bench held as under:- "28. We are of the opinion that there has to be a fine balance in approaching the issue. On the one hand, the State of Assam is facing external aggression and internal disturbance on account of large scale influx and illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals. On the other hand, citizenship of a person is a most valuable right which cannot simply be wished away. 29. That the provisions of the IMDT Act and the IMDT Rules were made to give shelter and protection to illegal migrants who came to Assam from Bangladesh on or after 25.3.1971 has already been noticed. The IMDT Act was conspicuously silent about burden of proof unlike Section 9 of the Act of 1946 which places the burden of proof upon the person concerned who claims to be an Indian citizen. The IMDT Act was conspicuously silent about burden of proof unlike Section 9 of the Act of 1946 which places the burden of proof upon the person concerned who claims to be an Indian citizen. In such circumstances, a very heavy burden was cast upon the authority of the State or the applicant to establish that a person is an illegal migrant as defined in Section 3(1)(c) of the IMDT Act and is liable for deportation. In spite of such odds, if the Tribunals constituted under IMDT Act, on the basis of the materials on record, had held that a person is an illegal migrant and liable for deportation, will it be correct and justified to hold that the case has to proceed against him afresh in the Tribunal constituted under Order of 1964 and that such person cannot be deported unless a fresh determination is made by such Tribunal? We are of the opinion that to hold so would be self defeating and will run counter to the very objective of detection and deportation of illegal migrants. Final orders of the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act are conclusive so far as IMDT Act is concerned, though it subsequently came to be struck down. However, such orders of the Tribunals are open to challenge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. If a person is declared to be an illegal migrant, he is liable for deportation and such order is binding upon him. Such orders are not obliterated only because IMDT Act had been struck down." 28. After holding so, the Full Bench further held as under:- "30. Let us visualize a scenario where a particular judgment was delivered by a Tribunal constituted under IMDT Act on 1.7.2005. The Tribunals and the Appellant Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act ceased to function with effect from 12.7.2005 i.e. the date of judgment in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). Let us also take note of the appeals preferred before the Appellate Tribunal by persons who were declared illegal migrants by the Tribunals, which stood abated with effect from 12.7.2005. Can such persons be without a remedy? The answer is obviously in the negative as no person can be left without a remedy in our constitutional scheme. Let us also take note of the appeals preferred before the Appellate Tribunal by persons who were declared illegal migrants by the Tribunals, which stood abated with effect from 12.7.2005. Can such persons be without a remedy? The answer is obviously in the negative as no person can be left without a remedy in our constitutional scheme. We are of the opinion that only because Appellate Tribunals ceased to exist and function, it cannot be said that such a person would be left without a remedy. Remedy is always available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the Writ Court to decide whether in a given case order of the Tribunal is valid and legally sustainable. If the Writ Court finds that the order of the Tribunal constituted under the IMDT Act requires interference in exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the proceeding has to be remanded to the Foreigners Tribunal constituted under Order of 1964 for adjudication in accordance with law, the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act having ceased to exist in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), as the question whether such person is a foreigner or not must be answered for the purpose of removal of the needle of suspicion on such person and if it is held that he is a foreigner, then to deport him from India. In such proceeding, on remand, the burden of proof that he is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen would be on him, in view of the provision contained in Section 9 of the Act of 1946. 31. In the event the Writ Court finds that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the proceedee is an illegal migrant is sustainable and upholds the decision of the Tribunal, the finding has to be taken to a logical conclusion, namely, deportation of such an illegal migrant, subject, of course, to interference with such finding by the superior Court. If a person, who was declared as an illegal migrant, say in the year 1985, but has not been deported and he has continued to remain illegally in India, files a writ petition now, without challenging the said finding all these years, naturally, the question of delay, etc. will come into play, which has to be considered with reference to the cause(s) shown. will come into play, which has to be considered with reference to the cause(s) shown. In other words, each application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to be considered individually in accordance with underlying principles governing exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Fresh trial under the Order of 1964 by the Foreigners Tribunal cannot be asked for as a matter of right but such an order for a fresh consideration by the Foreigners Tribunal will arise only if merit of the case so demands." 29. At this stage, we may mention that unlike under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 where the burden is on the proceedee to prove that he is not a foreigner but a citizen of India, there was no corresponding provision in the IMDT Act. Rather, under the IMDT Act and IMDT Rules burden was on the complainant or the State to prove that the proceedee was an illegal migrant. IMDT Rules also provided for constitution of screening committees and only after the screening committee made recommendation for making reference that the Superintendent of Police could make reference. In that context, in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra) Supreme Court declared that it would be open to the authorities to initiate fresh proceeding under the Foreigners Act against all person whose cases were not referred to the Tribunals by the competent authority whether on account of non-recommendation of the screening committee or for any other reason whatsoever. It was in such circumstances, the Full Bench held that even if a finding is recorded in a writ petition in favour of a person who was declared as an illegal migrant by the Tribunal under the IMDT Act, the State will not be precluded from proceeding afresh against such a person under the provisions of Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1946 became under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 the burden is on the proceedee unlike under the IMDT Act. This logic was extended to all those cases where the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act had answered the references against the State by declaring the proceedees as not illegal migrants. It was held that it would be open to the State in all such cases to proceed against those persons afresh under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. It was held that it would be open to the State in all such cases to proceed against those persons afresh under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. After such elaborate discussion, Full Bench answered the question referred to it in the following manner:- "34. In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, we answer the reference by holding that the orders already passed by the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act do not cease to exist with the striking down of the IMDT Act by the Apex Court as unconstitutional. Consequently, it does not necessarily follow that all cases already decided by the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act prior to such declaration have to be decided afresh by the Foreigners Tribunal. Orders passed by the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act can be assailed by way of a writ petition and each writ petition has to be considered on its own merits in accordance with principles governing exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If on consideration of the materials on record, the writ Court finds that the matter requires to be remanded for a fresh consideration, in that event, case will be remanded to the Foreigners Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law, i.e. the Act of 1946 and Order of 1964. In the event of dismissal of the writ petition filed by a person who was declared to be an illegal migrant, in absence of any further challenge, he will be liable to be deported. Further, the State will not be denuded of its power to proceed under the provisions of the Act of 1946 and Order of 1964 and to make a reference to the Foreigners Tribunal for adjudication in respect of a person whose writ petition, challenging the finding of the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act that he was an illegal migrant, is allowed by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Likewise, the State will be at liberty to make a reference to the Foreigners Tribunal in respect of those persons, who were not declared as illegal migrants by Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act." 30. Thus the final conclusions of the Full Bench in Anowar Ali (supra) is quite clear and unambiguous. Further deliberations may not be necessary. Likewise, the State will be at liberty to make a reference to the Foreigners Tribunal in respect of those persons, who were not declared as illegal migrants by Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act." 30. Thus the final conclusions of the Full Bench in Anowar Ali (supra) is quite clear and unambiguous. Further deliberations may not be necessary. However, Anowar Ali (supra) made it clear that the view taken in Shanti Ranjan Dey (supra) and Keramat Ali (supra) were not correct which decisions were impliedly over-ruled. However, this position has been made explicit by a subsequent Division Bench of this court in Afirun Nessa Vs. Union of India, WP(C) No. 2960/2017 decided on 09.06.2017 wherein it has been held as under:- "23. In Santi Ranjan Dey (supra), a number of writ petitions challenging orders passed by the IM(D) Tribunals declaring those petitioners as illegal migrants were pending. Learned Single Judge after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra) observed that no order was passed as regards the cases pending before the High Courts carried from the Appellate Tribunals. Learned addl. Advocate General, whose assistance was sought for, submitted before the learned Single Judge that it would be in the interest of justice if all pending writ petitions be transferred to the Foreigners' Tribunals for fresh hearing. It was virtually a concession given by the learned Addl. Advocate General and was accepted by the Single Bench by observing that if the order of the Appellate Tribunal was upheld "person concerned" would face deportation which would be highly prejudicial to him; on the other hand, if the writ petition succeeded and remanded, due to abatement of Appellate Tribunals, petitioners would be devoid of any legal forum. In both the situations Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India would be infringed upon. Based on this, all the pending writ petitions were remanded to the Foreigners' Tribunals for fresh decision. 24. First of all, a careful perusal of the Single Bench decision in Santi Ranjan Dey (supra) would show that it was an order passed following submission made by the learned Addl. Advocate General virtually as a concession which was accepted by the Single Bench. 24. First of all, a careful perusal of the Single Bench decision in Santi Ranjan Dey (supra) would show that it was an order passed following submission made by the learned Addl. Advocate General virtually as a concession which was accepted by the Single Bench. Secondly, no adjudication had taken place whereafter, it could be said that a considered decision was rendered by the Single Bench as a principle of law that all pending writ petitions against the orders passed by the IM(D) Tribunals or Appellate Tribunals (declaring the petitioners as illegal migrants or affirming such decision in appeal) would stand remanded to the Foreigners' Tribunal following declaration of the IMDT Act as unconstitutional. Thirdly, as discussed above, such a course of action as adopted in Santi Ranjan Dey (supra) ran completely counter to the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court judgment in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). We have discussed above that Supreme Court did not mention or touch the decisions rendered by the IM(D) Tribunals. On the contrary, by directing that appeals pending before the Appellate Tribunals would stand abated, the intent of the judgment is crystal clear-decisions of the IM(D) Tribunals declaring the suspects as illegal migrants had attained finality. Only remedy available to an illegal migrant so declared was to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. That brings us to the last limp of the analysis of Santi Ranjan Dey (supra). A proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a statutory proceeding. The remedy of writ jurisdiction is not a statutory remedy. It is a constitutional remedy. That being the nature of writ remedy, observation of the Single Bench that no order was passed by the Supreme Court as regards the cases pending before the High Court carried from the Appellate Tribunals was based on a flawed understanding of the above position. If an illegal migrant was aggrieved by his declaration by the IM(D) Tribunal as an illegal migrant, the constitutional remedy of invoking the writ jurisdiction was open to him. Therefore, view taken by the Single Bench that such illegal migrants would be denuded of any remedy was not a correct interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). Therefore, view taken by the Single Bench that such illegal migrants would be denuded of any remedy was not a correct interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). Having discussed the above, we hold that Santi Ranjan Dey (supra) does not lay down any principle of law as a binding precedent. Infact, we are further constrained to hold that Santi Ranjan Dey (supra) is completely contrary to the letter and spirit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). In an individual case, the writ court in the facts and circumstances of that case may set aside the order of the IM(D) Tribunal and remand the matter back; on such remand, it would be treated as a pending reference and would be heard by the competent Foreigners' Tribunal in terms of direction No. (3) of paragraph 84 of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). But as a principle of law, it cannot be said that a concluded proceeding under the IMDT Act whereby the suspect was declared to be an illegal migrant has to be reopened and heard afresh by the Foreigners' Tribunal under the Foreigners' Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 following declaration of the IMDT Act as unconstitutional. We say this because the suspect was held to be an illegal migrant by following stringent provisions under extremely difficult, cumbersome and time consuming procedure laid down under the IMDT Act which was purposely enacted to give shelter and protection to illegal migrants rather than to identify and deport them. This view of ours finds support from the Supreme Court direction in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra) that appeals pending before the Appellate Tribunal would stand abated which means that the decisions of the IM(D) Tribunals declaring the suspects as illegal migrants which were appealed against had attained finality. Having said that, question of an illegal migrant declared to be so by the IM(D) Tribunal being highly prejudiced if deported does not arise at all. There is no question of infringement of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India of a declared illegal migrant facing deportation as observed by the Single Bench. Having said that, question of an illegal migrant declared to be so by the IM(D) Tribunal being highly prejudiced if deported does not arise at all. There is no question of infringement of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India of a declared illegal migrant facing deportation as observed by the Single Bench. In paragraph 73 of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), Supreme Court has held that in the matter of identification of a foreigner and his deportation, he is not being deprived of his life or personal liberty and in paragraph 79, it has been categorically held that Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally crossed the border and have trespassed into Assam or are living in other parts of the country have no legal right of any kind to remain in India and they are liable to be deported. 25. In Karamat Ali (supra), writ petition filed by the declared illegal migrant against the order of IM(D) Tribunal was dismissed; against which, appeal was filed, which was pending. Following Santi Ranjan Dey (supra), the Division Bench remanded the case of the declared illegal migrant to the Foreigners' Tribunal for fresh decision; here also no principle of law was laid down. Course of action adopted in Santi Ranjan Dey (supra) was followed. There is no binding precedent here. 26. Supreme Court in Satish Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 760 (para 17) had held in unequivocal terms that a decision without consideration of the principle of law and without there being contest on the principle of law cannot be treated as a precedent for declaring the legal issue at hand. 27. Applying the aforesaid decision and as discussed above, neither Santi Ranjan Dey (supra) or Karamat Ali (supra), lay down any principle of law as a binding precedent. On the contrary, there is no ambiguity at all regarding the issue in hand, which can be clearly deduced from the Supreme Court decision in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra) as discussed above." 31. Therefore, from the Full Bench decision in Anowar Ali (supra) it is quite evident that the order of the Division Bench dated 15.09.2011 in the case of the appellants lost its legal force. Learned Senior Special Counsel is right in saying that the said order dated 15.09.2011 stood eclipsed by the Full Bench decision in Anowar Ali (supra). 32. Therefore, from the Full Bench decision in Anowar Ali (supra) it is quite evident that the order of the Division Bench dated 15.09.2011 in the case of the appellants lost its legal force. Learned Senior Special Counsel is right in saying that the said order dated 15.09.2011 stood eclipsed by the Full Bench decision in Anowar Ali (supra). 32. However, having said that, we feel that the previous order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.04.2011 which was the subject matter in Writ Appeal No. 148/2011 is required to be adjudicated upon on its own merit since the order dated 15.09.2011 was passed without adjudication. 33. We have already noticed the stringent provisions of the IMDT Act and the IMDT Rules where burden was on the State to prove that the proceedee was an illegal migrant. Notwithstanding such absurd requirements under the IMDT Act, State had adduced evidence and was successful in getting its reference answered in its favour from the Illegal Migrants (D) Tribunal by declaring the appellants to be illegal migrants vide the order dated 17.06.2005. 34. This order came to be challenged before this Court in WP(C) No. 242/2011. Learned Single Judge re-appreciated the entire evidence tendered by the State as well as by the appellants whereafter the writ petition was dismissed vide the order dated 21.4.2011 in the following manner:- "22. As noticed above, in the 1960 voter list, name of one Masbir aged 54 years son of Musan Mia appears, whom the petitioner No. 1 claims to be his father. However, in the writ petition, he has described his father as Shri Musabbir Ali. In the 1966 voter list, name of one Abdul Musbi Ali aged 45 years son of Fazal Ali appears, whom also the petitioner No. 1 claims to be his father. Thus, within a span of six years, the name of the father of the father of the petitioner No. 1 got changed from Musbir to Musbi and his age got reduced from 54 to 45. Not only that, the name of the grand father of the petitioner No. 1 also got changed from Musan Mia to Fazal Ali. As to how such variation could take place, there is no explanation in the writ petition. 23. Not only that, the name of the grand father of the petitioner No. 1 also got changed from Musan Mia to Fazal Ali. As to how such variation could take place, there is no explanation in the writ petition. 23. In 1970 voter list, name of one Abdul Musba Ali aged 49 years son of Fazal Ali appears but in the voter list of 1977, name of one Musba Ali aged 50 years son of Musal appears. The petitioner No. 1 claims that both persons are his father, who was 49 years of age in 1970 but became only 50 years of age after 7(seven) years i.e. in 1977. Not only that his grand father's name got changed from Fazal Ali to Musal during this period of 7 (seven) years. 24. Appearance of name of the petitioners in 1977 voter list and thereafter, is of no consequence, inasmuch as, the cut off date is 25.3.1971. The petitioners have failed to produce any documents other than the aforementioned voter lists to prove their Indian citizenship, by birth. If the petitioners are Indian citizens, by birth, they could have easily disclosed the material particulars, which they miserably failed to do. Not only that they did not even state about their place of birth. 25. The petitioners have placed reliance on the Annexure-5 photocopy of the Jamabandi which was never produced before the Tribunal and thus this Court cannot take notice of the same. Mere containing the name of one Misma Khatoon can not go to show that the petitioner No. 2 is an Indian citizen, by birth. If her name was included in the Jamabandi No. 68 and 69, it is not understood as to why her name did not appear in any one of the voter lists of that period of time. Her name came to be included only in the voter list of 1989 and 1997. The names Misya Khatooon and Misma Khatoon are said to be her name, although in the writ petition, she has disclosed her name as Mustt. Misma Khatoon. 26. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed." 35. First of all, the reference before the Illegal Migrants (D) Tribunal, Hojai was duly contested by the appellants. Misma Khatoon. 26. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed." 35. First of all, the reference before the Illegal Migrants (D) Tribunal, Hojai was duly contested by the appellants. After hearing the reference the said Tribunal had answered the same vide order dated 17.06.2005 in favour of the State. Thus, State was successful in discharging its burden under the IMDT Act and the IMDT Rules to prove that appellants were illegal migrants. Such decision of the said Tribunal was examined at great length by the learned Single Judge as extracted above and thereafter, by the order dated 21.04.2011 affirmed the same and dismissed the writ petition. It is not that the case of the appellants were not decided on merit or that reasonable opportunity was not granted to them to present their case. As discussed above, the Dlegal Migrants (D) Tribunal had afforded full opportunity to the appellants and thereafter had rendered its opinion on merit which was affirmed by the learned Single Judge after re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record. Such decision of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be a perverse decision by any standard. In an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact Appellate Bench should not disturb the same unless a conclusion is reached that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse. In Management of Narendra Vs. Workmen, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340 , Supreme Court has held that merely because another view is possible, there should be no interference with the order of the Single Bench. 36. Therefore, upon a thorough consideration of the entire materials on record, we do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.04.2011. 37. In view of the Full Bench decision in Anowar Ali (supra), earlier decision of the Division Bench dated 15.09.2011 and the consequential order of the Tribunal dated 19.10.2011 would be of no legal consequence. To that extent learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the second writ petition i.e., WP(C) 1043/2013 vide the impugned order dated 25.05.2015. Learned Single Judge held as under:- "As per the aforesaid findings of the Full Bench, the cases already decided by the Tribunals constituted under the IM(D)T Act does not require to be decided afresh by the Foreigners Tribunals. Learned Single Judge held as under:- "As per the aforesaid findings of the Full Bench, the cases already decided by the Tribunals constituted under the IM(D)T Act does not require to be decided afresh by the Foreigners Tribunals. It has been held that the orders passed by the IM(D)T can only be challenged by way of a writ petition which is to be decided on its merit. As noted above, the declaration made against the petitioners by the then IM(D)T was assailed in a writ petition being WP(C) No. 242/2011 which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 21/04/2011." 38. In continuation, we may add that the above judgment and order dated 21.04.2011 has been affirmed by us as we are in agreement with the findings reached therein. 39. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 40. Registry to inform the concerned Foreigners Tribunal, Superintendent of Police (B) and Deputy Commissioner for taking necessary follow-up steps. Copies of this order may also be forwarded to learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and State Coordinator, NRC.