Point of Law: Principle of res-judicata will be applicable in the proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 4, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI for respondent No. 2; Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal appearing for respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6.

2. Considering the nature of the case, we are inclined to dispose of this petition at this stage without examining all the grounds raised by the petitioner in challenging the opinion dated 30.10.2019 passed by learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (4th), Darrang, Mangaldai in F.T. 4th Case No. 282/SPR/2017 [F.T. Case No. 80/09, Ref. IM(D) T Case No. 10907/98].

3. It has been submitted that after the petitioner was proceeded in the aforesaid F.T.4th Case No. 282/SPR/2017 [F.T. Cases No. 80/09, Ref. IM(D) T Case No. 10907/98] before the Foreigners Tribunal (4th), Darrang, Mangaldai, the petitioner duly appeared before the Tribunal and filed his written statement and documents relied on by him to prove his case.

4. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier proceeded by Foreigners Tribunal, Darrang, Mangaldai in F.T. Case No. 64/09 [S.P. Enquiry No. 156/2000] in which by an opinion dated 05.09.2009 rendered by the learned Tribunal and the reference made against him was answered in the negative and against the State.

Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the aforesaid opinion dated 05.09.2009, the petitioner was not declared a foreigner and as such, the question of declaring the petitioner a foreigner in the subsequent proceeding does not arise in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Kuddus vs. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604 wherein it has been held that the principle of res-judicata will be applicable in the proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal.

In other words, if an opinion was rendered by the Foreigners Tribunal in respect of a person, the said opinion would be binding on the subsequent proceeding against the same person.

5. In the present case, as claimed by the petitioner that he was earlier proceeded in F.T. Case No. 64/09 [S.P. Enquiry No. 156/2000] and was declared not a foreigner by order dated 05.09.2009 and as such, the opinion would continue to hold the field as regards the status and citizenship of the petitioner and as such, subsequent reference by the authority and the opinion rendered by the Tribunal would not be permissible in law in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Abdul Kuddus (supra).

6. We have gone through the impugned opinion dated 30.10.2019 passed by learned Foreigners Tribunal (4th), Darrang, Mangaldai in F.T. 4th Case No. 282/SPR/2017 [F.T. Case No. 80/09, Ref. IM(D) T Case No. 10907/98].

7. On perusal of the said opinion dated 30.10.2019, it is clearly evident that the petitioner had filed a certified copy of the order dated 05.09.2009 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Darrang, Mangaldai in F.T. Case No. 64/09 [S.P. Enquiry No. 156/2000], which was exhibited as Ext.1.

8. What we have observed is that the learned Foreigners Tribunal did not examine as to whether the earlier opinion was in respect of same or another person or not.

On the other hand, the learned Tribunal went to analyse the finding of the opinion dated 05.09.2009 passed in F.T. Case No. 64/09 and found certain apparent contradictions that had been stated in the in F.T. Case No. 64/09 with what had been stated in the present proceeding before it.

9. We are afraid, the Tribunal could not have undertaken such an exercise of considering and re-appreciating the evidence already considered in the opinion dated 05.09.2009 in F.T. Case No. 64/09 as the Tribunal is not the appellate or reviewing authority of an earlier opinion of the Tribunal.

10. We have also noted that the decision in Abdul Kuddus (supra) was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme court on 17.05.2019 and the pres