Back
2015 Supreme(Gau) 1023
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
B.K. Sharma, J.
Kitabjan (Musstt.) - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 5049 of 2015.
Decided on : 01-10-2015
For the Petitioner:M.U. Mahmud and S. Hoque, M. Ali, A. Rahman, A. Das and A. Medhi, Advocates.
For the Respondents: P. Baruah, Asstt. Solicitor General of India and B.J. Ghosh, State Counsel.
Headnote:
Citizenship Act, 1955 – Sections - 3, 5, 6 and 6A – Falsification of truth and abusing – Challenge in writ petition is final order of Foreigners Tribunal in F.T. Case were declared to be foreigners stream – So far as other proceeded are concerned were not found to be foreigners within said stream – In terms of directions contained in impugned order petitioner was to register her name with Registering Authority at within 2(two) months – Admittedly she has not registered her name till date - In meantime she has been taken into custody and presently said to be at Detention Camp at –Held, A person who has been declared as a foreigner by Foreigners Tribunal prior has not been registered under sub-section (3) of Section 6-A for reason of non-receipt of order of Foreigners Tribunal or refusal by registering authority to register such person as a foreigner on account of delay may within a period of thirty days from date of receipt of order passed by Foreigners Tribunal or from date of publication of this notification make an application for registration in Form XVIII to registering authority of district in which such person is ordinarily a resident – Provided that registering authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend said period to such further period as may be justified in each case but not exceeding one hundred eighty days – As per aforesaid provision also petitioner is not entitled to get any extension of time limit - Situated thus she is a declared foreigner and having not acquired right of a citizen of India –Writ petition dismissed
B.K. Sharma, J.
Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and so also Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State counsel.
2. This writ petition has been filed with falsification of truth and abusing the process of law. On that score alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. The challenge in the writ petition is the final order dated 21st March, 2003 of the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon in F.T. Case No.2148/1988 (State v. Musstt. Marbanu & 8 Ors.), by which the petitioner, namely, Mustt. Kitabjan, along with Md. Mona Hussain and Musstt. Chamuza Khatoon, were declared to be foreigners of 1st January, 1966 to 25th March, 1971 stream. So far as the other proceedees are concerned, namely, (1) Musstt. Marbanu; (2) Md. Nur Hussain; (3) Md. Nur Islam; (4) Md. Jamir Hussain; (5) Md. Minul Hussain and (6) Md. Makbul Hussain, were not found to be foreigners within said stream. In terms of the directions contained in the impugned order, the petitioner was to register her name with the Registering Authority at Nagaon within 2(two) months. Admittedly, she has not registered her name till date. In the meantime, she has been taken into custody and presently said to be at the Detention Camp at Kokrajhar.
4. When the matter was taken up on 10th September, 2005, Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the petitioner was not served with any notice in respect of the proceeding before the Tribunal. Having regard to such a submission, records were called for from the Foreigners Tribunal.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the entire materials on record including the LCR received from the Tribunal.
6. In paragraphs 5 and 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that she did not receive any notice from the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon in F.T. Case No.2148/1988 with which the present proceeding is concerned. For a ready reference, paragraphs 5 and 7 are quoted below:
"5. That the petitioner begs to state that she did not know about the F.T. Case No.2146/1988 and nor she received any notice from the Foreigner's Tribunal, Nagaon to prove her Indian nationality. Due to ignorance of the said case, your petitioner did not contest the case and remained absent without step though your petitioner had all valid documents to prove her nationality. The Foreigner's Tribunal, Nagaon, without being heard and giving any opportunity to the petitioner to be heard passed the impugned ex-parte order, dated 21-03-2003, declaring the petitioner as foreign national of 1966 to 1971.
7. That the petitioner begs to state that she did not know about order, dated 21-03-03, passed by the Ld. Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon. She has come to know about the said order only in the month of May, 2015, when the police of Nagaon P.S arrested her and after inquiry, she came to know that there is an ex-parte order, dated 21-03-03, passed by the Ld. Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon against her. The right of citizenship is the highest right conferred by Constitution of India. But, by the impugned ex-parte order, dated 21-03-03, passed in F.T Case No.2146/1988, which is gross violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India as well as the Sections - 3, 5, 6 and 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, Foreigners' Act, Foreigners' Tribunal Orders etc. Thereafter, she collected a copy of the ex-parte order on 21-08-15, and has filed this writ petition for remedy. Even the petitioner was not given chance to register her name before the registering authority."
7. The impugned order was passed on 21st March, 2003 and the instant writ petition was filed on 20th August, 2015 and thus, there is delay of more than 12(twelve) years in filing the writ petition. However, si
