Point of Law: If recording of evidence is concluded and matter is fixed for argument for delivery of judgment and after hearing of submission of parties is concluded if Judge is transferred or demits office, in that event, new incumbent Judge ought to re-hear the oral submission of parties before delivery of judgment.

JUDGMENT :

N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Ms. D. Gosh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal; Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, NRC as well as appears on behalf of Mr. R.K. Deb Choudhury, learned ASGI; Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, ECI and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon.

2. The plea of the petitioners amongst others is that they were proceeded before the Foreigners Tribunal 1st, Morigaon in F.T. Case No. 54/2010 and F.T. Case No. 104/2010 and after hearing the matter, the learned Tribunal reserved for delivery of judgment on 12.05.2017. However, no judgment was rendered. But the new Tribunal Member who took charge of the office, without hearing the parties again, disposed of the matter on 05.09.2018 by holding the petitioners as illegal immigrants of post 25.03.1971 stream. Accordingly, it has been submitted that since the petitioners were not heard by the new incumbent learned Member of the Tribunal, the opinion rendered has been vitiated and as such, deserves to be set aside.

In this regard, Ms. Ghosh has referred to the decision rendered by this Court in writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 139/2019 disposed of on 27.09.2021 dealing with similar issue.

3. Accordingly, without going into the other grounds raised in this petition, we will first examine whether the impugned opinion dated 05.09.2018 was rendered without hearing the parties as alleged.

4. We have gone through the original records.

On perusal of the original records, it is seen that on 12.05.2017 when the matter was taken up by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, the following order was passed keeping it reserved for judgment:

“Opposite party has filed Hazira and the learned engaged counsel for the O.Ps. has advanced his argument on behalf of the O.Ps.

In the meantime, one Jamabandi copy has been submitted by the O.P. which is marked as Mark-1.

Now, the matter of delivering the judgment is kept reserved.”

However, when the matter was again put up before the same learned Member of Tribunal on 12.04.2018, the following order was passed releasing the matter from being reserved for judgment:

“Though the matter was kept reserved for judgment, the same could not be delivered due to shortage of time as well as dearth of a typist in this Tribunal.

The matter is accordingly released from being reserved.”

5. The original records of the Tribunal indicate that the matter was subsequently taken up on 05.09.2018 by the new Member of the Tribunal, and the following order was passed disposing of the said case declaring the proceeded as foreigners:

“The case record is put up today for delivering the Final order which is written in 9 (nine) separate pages signed and sealed and kept with the record.

After summing up the materials on record and perusal of the evidence of the O.Ps. I am of the opinion that all the OPs referred in the Case No. 1, i.e. F.T. (C) Case No. 54/2010, namely Nooruddin, Karimjan Begum @ Karimjan Nessa, Abdul and Majnur Ali and in Case No. 2, i.e. F.T. (C) Case No. 104/2010, namely Rahatun Nessa @ Rahatun Begum and Innus Ali, all of village Naramari Reserve/Naramari under P.S. Dharamtul in the district of Morigaon, Assam are foreigners/illegal migrants who entered India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. Hence, the references are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Union of India.

Simultaneously, it is also opined that the OP1 Roshan Ali of F.T. (C) Case No. 104/2010 is doubted whether he is expired. Since, the documents did not amount to prove his citizenship, the OP is declared to be an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971. The Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon shall inquire about the OP1 Roshan Ali through his subordinate officer and take necessary steps as per law. In regard to Majibur Ali, found in the records of the case, this Tribunal does not observe anything, but forward it to the SP(B), Morigaon for ne