Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 77 (GAU)

Md Yakub Ali v. Union Of India

2020-01-24

MANOJIT BHUYAN, PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard learned counsel, Mr. A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal and Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, NRC. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 01.06.2005, passed by the Illegal Migrants(D) Tribunal, Nagaon in I.M.(D)T. Case No. 320/1998 (D). 3. Reference herein was made by Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon under Section 8 (1) of the Illegal Migrants (Determination) by Tribunals Act, 1983 to decide as to whether the petitioner Md. Yakub Ali is or is not an illegal migrant under Section 3(1) (c) of the aforesaid Act. 4. In response to the notice sent by the tribunal, the petitioner appeared before it and filed his written statement. The petitioner claimed before the Tribunal that his father Late Sultan Ali was a voter in the year 1970. He also pleaded that according to the admit card of the metric examination of the year 1996, his date of birth is 01.06.1978. At the time of hearing, the State examined one witness, the Investigating Officer. Whereas, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence. Finally on the basis of the evidence of the Investigating Officer the Tribunal arrived at the finding, holding that the petitioner Yakub Ali is an illegal migrant. 5. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Tribunal. The judgment was passed on 01.06.2005 and this writ petition has been filed in the year 2019. Furthermore, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence before the learned Tribunal. The impugned judgment reflects this fact, which stated that even after being given ample opportunities to adduce evidence, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence before the learned Tribunal. Now, when the petitioner was arrested and put in a detention camp, then only he filed this writ petition. So, it is clear on the face of the record that there was utter negligence on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner did not exercise due diligence. 6. A Writ Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not review the finding of facts. The Writ Court's power is supervisory only just to make sure that no perversity is done by the learned Tribunal. Here there is none. Therefore, we find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.