2015 Supreme(Gau) 674
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
B.K. SHARMA, J.
Mustt. Sarifan Bewa - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Home, Dispur, Guwahati-6, Assam. – Respondent
WP (C) No. 2915 of 2015
Decided on : 21.08.2015
For the petitioners: Mr. I. Alam. Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel holding for Mr. S.C. Keyal, ASGI.
Ms. V.L. Singha, GA, Assam.
The scope of interference with the Tribunal's order under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited, and the writ of certiorari can only be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction or law apparent on the face of the record.
Headnote:
Foreigners Act - Declaration of Foreigner - Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 - Kacha Patta No. 121 (Ex.1), voters' list of 1966 (Ex. 2), linkage certificate (Ex.4), land revenue paying receipt (Ex. 5) - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order declaring the petitioner as a foreigner. The court found discrepancies in the evidence presented and held that such findings of fact cannot be interfered with lightly. The court cited the scope of interference with the Tribunal's order under Article 226 of the Constitution and emphasized that the writ of certiorari can only be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction or law apparent on the face of the record.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged the order declaring the petitioner as a foreigner based on discrepancies in the evidence presented, including variations in names and lack of documentary evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the findings of fact cannot be interfered with lightly and cited the scope of interference with the Tribunal's order under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: Discrepancies in evidence, challenge to the order declaring the petitioner as a foreigner, scope of interference with the Tribunal's order under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the writ of certiorari can only be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction or law apparent on the face of the record.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to be arrested and detained in the detention camp till her deportation to Bangladesh. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to ensure deletion of the petitioner's name from the voter list, if any.
1. Heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. V.L. Singha, learned State Counsel and so also Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel holding for Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI. I have also perused the entire materials on record along with the records received from the learned Tribunal.
2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29/06/2012 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1 in FT Case No. 1237/G/2010 (Ref. cas No. R/IMDT/1908/98) (State of Assam Vs. Musstt. Sarifan Bewa). Byu the said order, the petitioner has been declared to be a foreigner of post 25/03/1971 stream. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that minor variations here and there in the name of the person concerned cannot lead to the inference that the petitioner failed to discharge her burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents submit that the learned Tribunal having arrived at a particular finding based on the evidence on record, the said finding cannot be set aside like an appellate authority while exercising writ jurisdiction.
3. The entire find of the learned Tribunal is discernible in para 5 of the impugned order. They are divided into parts and are reproduced below :-
“5. (i) The first document relied upon by the OP is the Kacha Patta No. 121 (Ex.1). On perusal of the same, it is found that the names of the proposed pattadars mentioned in it are (a) Nasimuddin Sk (b) Kasimuddin Sk and (c) Jahiruddin Sk – all sons of Late Hussain Sk. The OP has stated that the name of her grandfather is Ashun Ali Sk. If the name of her grandfather was Ashun Ali Sk then Kasimuddin, whose name is shown in Ex. 1 cannot be the father of the OP as the name of Kasimuddin’s father is shown as Hussain Ali Sk in Ex.1 ;
(ii) The second document relied upon by the OP is the voters’ list of 1966 (Ex. 2) wherein the only single name mentioned is of one Kasiruddin Sk s/o. Ashun Sk. The OP has stated that the name of her father is Kosimuddin Sk and if that be so, mit cannot be said for certain that the name mentioned in Ex. 2 is the name of the father of the OP. Even if it is conceded for argument sake that the name Kasimuddin Sl as it appears in Ex.1 and the name Kasiruddin Sk as it appears in Ex. 2, is the name of one and the same person, it cannot be said that the said Kasimuddin or Kasiruddin is the father of the OP because the father’s name of Kasimuddin is shown as Hussain Sk in Ex. 1 whereas the father’s name of Kasiruddin Sk is shown as Ashun Sk in Ex.2 ;
(iii) The linkage certificate (Ex.4) also shows that Sarifan Bewa (the OP) is the daughter of Kasimuddin Sk but as already stated above the name mentioned in the voters’ list of 1966 is of Kasiruddin Sk and not Kosimuddin or Kasimuddin Sk ;
(iv) The OP has stated in her cross examination that her mother Aimona Bewa is still alive but she could not produce any document to show that her mother’s name was ever found recorded in any of the voters’ lists in or after the year 1966 ;
(v) As per OP’s evidence, her husband Azibor Sk used to live with her at her father’s residence and he died after about one year of their marriage. This shows that the OP still lives in the house of her father with her mother who is still alive but she has failed to explain as to why the name of her mother was never recorded in any of the voters’ lists at her village ;
(vi) Further, the OP has stated that her present age is about 40 years. If that be so, she should have been born in around 1972. She has submitted voters’ list of 2008 showing her name in the same but she could not give satisfactory explanation as to why her name did not appear in any of the voters’ lists from 1994 and prior to the voters list of 2008 ;
(vii) She has stated in her evidence that her father died about 30 years ago but she did not submit the certified copy of any voters’ list after 1966 showing the name of her father a