IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, ROBIN PHUKAN, JJ.
Sahidul Islam @ Md. Sahidur Seikh, S/o Bohiyet Sheikh – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And 8 Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 2347 of 2021
Decided on : 13-02-2023
Conspicuous place - Person entered state from specified territory - Petitioner referred to Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat for an opinion as to whether he is a person who entered state of Assam from specified territory – Held, Order makes it discernible that having failed to trace out petitioner, notice was displayed by pasting same in a conspicuous place, without stating as to what was conspicuous place - Procedure that was adopted appears to be in deviation of required procedure of law, in as much as, requirement of law is that notice is to be pasted at last known residential address of proceedee in case he is untraceable, and it cannot at any convenient place as per discretion of tribunal and call it to be a conspicuous place - Considering matter in its entirety and for interest of justice, ex-parte opinion is set aside - Petitioner to appear before Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat and upon his appearance that tribunal may render its opinion – Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 4; Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 8 and 9; Mr. A. Hoque, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 3; and Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6.
2. The petitioner was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat for an opinion as to whether he is a person who entered the state of Assam from the specified territory subsequent to 25.03.1971. The order dated 02.07.2018 as per the order sheet reveals as extracted:
It appears from the report of the P/S that having failed to ‘trace out the present residential address/where about of the said O.P. the notice therefore being displayed by pasting the same in a conspicuous place. Hence, the notice is duly served as per 3[5][f] of the F[T] order, 1964.
However, inspite of the completion of the service of notice, the said O.P. is absent today without any step.
For the ends of justice, the case is fixed again on 13.07.2018 for app. & W.S.”
3. Due to non appearance of the petitioner an ex-parte opinion dated 30.10.2018 in FT Case no. 34/2011 was passed. Being aggrieved this writ petition is instituted. The petitioner takes a stand that he did not receive any notice from the tribunal requiring his appearance. The order dated 02.07.2018 makes it discernible that having failed to trace out the petitioner, the notice was displayed by pasting the same in a conspicuous place, without stating as to what was the conspicuous place. The said procedure that was adopted appears to be in deviation of the required procedure of the law, in as much as, the requirement of law is that the notice is to be pasted at the last known residential address of the proceedee in case he is untraceable, and it cannot at any convenient place as per the discretion of the tribunal and call it to be a conspicuous place.
4. Considering the matter in its entirety and for the interest of the justice, the ex-parte opinion dated 30.10.2018 in FT Case no. 34/2011 is set aside.
5. The petitioner to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat on 29.03.2023 and upon his appearance that the tribunal may render its opinion as per law, as may be advised.
6. Writ petition stands allowed as indicated above.
7. Send back the LCR.
Proper procedure for notice service must be strictly followed; deviations are not permissible as established by the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.
Proper service of notice is essential for a fair legal process and the validity of judgments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the service of notice must be proper, and the rejection of a prayer for vacating an ex parte order should not be merely on technical grounds.
The court ruled the necessity of proper notice in Foreigners' Tribunal proceedings to secure fair representation, deeming the order ex parte due to inadequate service.
Failure to properly serve notice under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 renders Tribunal opinions invalid, requiring adherence to legal service protocols.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.