Suppression of material facts by a litigant disqualifies them from obtaining any relief, and the duty of the Union of India to take measures for protection from illegal migration.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. Both the petitions based on more or less same set of facts with the same issue involved, were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The Petitioners involved in these two writ petitions have been declared as foreigners and illegal migrants to India by the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal (IMDT), Barpeta consequent upon which the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta has issued orders directing the Petitioners to remove themselves from India within 15 days from the date of service of notice. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal and the consequent notices issued by the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, the Petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the writ petitions.

3. In both the writ petitions the basic ground towards assailing the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Tribunal is the same, i.e. non-receipt of any notice from the Tribunal towards passing the orders declaring them to be illegal migrants to India. It is their pleaded case that no notice was served on them in respect of the proceedings before the Tribunal and the impugned judgments and orders have been passed behind their back in violation of the principles of natural justice. According to the Petitioners they were not aware of the proceedings in the Tribunal before passing the impugned judgments and orders and according to them on that score alone the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and quashed.

4. Specific averments made to the above effect in both the writ petitions are one and the same. Such statements have been made in paragraph-7 of the writ petitions. Be it stated here that while in the first writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5474/05 the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is dated 07.04.05, in the second writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5475/05 the impugned judgment and order is dated 10.03.05. The statement regarding non-receipt of notice in respect of proceedings before the Tribunal have been made in paragraph-7 of both the writ petitions. Paragraph-7 of the writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 5474/05 is quoted below:

7. That the Petitioner begs to state that the reference Under Section 8(1) of IM (D)T Act 1983 was illegal on the ground of no enquiry was conducted as referenced in the reference and no prior notice was served to the Petitioner at any point of time. It is further begs to state that no notice was served to the Petitioner and no notice was received by the Petitioner at any point of time prior to the judgment and order dated 07.03.05 for that a reason ex-parte judgment and order was delivered in violation of the principle of natural justice and on that ground alone the impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.05 passed in IM (D)T Case No. 1343/03 by the IM(D) T, Barpeta is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide and without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed.

5. The above specific stand of the Petitioners in both the writ petitions is contrary to the reflections made in both the impugned judgments and orders, as per which notices were dully served on the Petitioners, but upon their absence in the proceedings, the matters proceeded ex-parte against them. The proceedings in case No. 1343/03 and case No. 3004/04 respectively were initiated by the Tribunal upon references made by the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta alleging the Petitioners to be illegal migrants having entered into India after 25th March, 1971 without any valid documents of travel. On perusal of the impugned judgments and orders dated 07.03.05 and 10.03.05 respectively, it appears that notices in both the cases were served on the Petitioners as second party, but they remained absent in the proceedings without any steps. Consequently, the impugned judgments and orders had to be passed ex-parte against them.

6. The records of the proceeding before the Tribunal are clear testimony of service of notice on th