JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.7309/2019, Mr. P. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.1296/2022, 1614/2022, 4279/2022 and 4282/2022 as well as Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.3448/2022. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Special Counsel, FT; Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel ; Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, NRC; Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI and Ms. K. Phukan and Mr. N.K. Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam.

2. The present petitions have been heard together since a common issue runs through these petitions which relates to transfer of proceedings from one Foreigners Tribunal to another.

3. Before we advert to the detail facts and rival submissions of the contesting parties, we will briefly refer to the relevant facts of each of the petitions.

4. WP(C) 7309/2019

4.1. The matter relates to the prayer for transfer of the proceeding from the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat to Foreigners Tribunal, Kokrajhar while challenging the impugned order dated 11.03.2010 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat in Case No. JFT 1767/2006.

4.2. The petitioner, Jonglu Ali @ Janglu Ali, is a permanent resident of Vill. Aibhandar No.2, Bhowraguri, PO. Kamalsing, PS. Gossaigaon, Kokrajhar, Assam. It is his case that because of economic necessity he had ventured out of his permanent place of residence in Kokrajhar and obtained a temporary employment in a brick field located in Hahchora under Teok Police Station, District-Jorhat and was employed with one Malay Saikia. After closing down of the said brick field, he left the said place in Jorhat in search of another employment. However, during his stay in Jorhat, an enquiry was initiated by the enquiring authority under the Foreigners Act as regards his citizenship status when certain doubts were raised about his citizenship. Accordingly, the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the enquiring authority. While recording the statement, the enquiring authority recorded the fact that the petitioner is otherwise a permanent resident of No.1 Aibhandar village and he came to the said brickfield located in Jorhat in search of his livelihood. The petitioner also informed the enquiring authority that his father had cast vote in 1966 and as such he is a citizen of India. He also stated that he possesses a plot of land measuring ½ bigha. However, the petitioner admitted that he did not bring any documentary proof relating to his citizenship while coming to Jorhat. He also stated before the enquiring authority that he will be able to obtain necessary documents from his residence within 15 days.

It appears that the employee of the petitioner also gave statement stating that the petitioner hails from Kokrajhar district. On the basis of the said enquiry, a report was duly submitted to the referral authority and the referral authority, on the basis of the enquiry report, made a reference to the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat stating that the petitioner is a foreigner and, accordingly, JFT Case No.1767/2006 was initiated against him before the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat.

4.3. It has been submitted by Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner that, though an enquiry was held while the petitioner was in employment in the said brick field in Jorhat and thereafter, since the petitioner was not intimated about the result of the said enquiry, on the closure of the said brick field, the petitioner left the said employment in Jorhat. However, during his absence, the proceeding was initiated, and the notice was sought to be served at the address while he was an employee in the said brick field in Teok. Since the petitioner was not found in the said place, the Tribunal deemed the notice to have been served and, proceeded exparte against the petitioner. By the exparte-order dated 11.03.2010 passed, the Tribunal declared him to be a foreigner.

4.4. It is this order, which