The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and the Citizenship Act, 1955, specifically regarding the determination of citizenship status based on language and place of migration.

ORDER :

[Soumitra Saikia, J.]

1. Heard Ms. H. Betala, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned counsel representing respondent no.1, Mr. U. K. Nair, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Kalita appears for respondent nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8; Ms. B. Das, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel for respondent no.4.

2. The petitioner, Smti Manju Chetri who claims to be a resident of Durgasorobar, P.SBharalumukh, Dist- Kamrup (M), Assam has approached this Court being aggrieved by the ex-parte opinion dated 26-02-2020 rendered by the Member, Foreigners Tribunal 5th Kamrup (M), Guwahati in D.V. Case No. 162/2018 arising out of a reference case No. 3090/1999, whereby the reference was answered in affirmative declaring her to be a foreigner of Post 1971 stream. The petitioner was directed to be pushed back to the ‘Specified Territory’ in exercise of power under section 3(13) of The Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and to be taken into the custody as an internee till deportation to the ‘Specified Territory’.

3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that Superintendent of Police (Border), Kamrup (M), Guwahati upon an information received that the petitioner is an illegal migrant who entered into India on or after 25-03-1971, registered a case vide IMDT Case No. 3090/1999 and conducted an enquiry into the matter and referred the case to the Foreigners Tribunal No. 1st Kamrup (M). The Foreigners Tribunal registered the case as D.V. Case No.162/2018 and issued Notice to the petitioner on 21-11-2018. Although the petitioner had appeared before the Foreigners Tribunal 1st Kamrup (M), Guwahati upon receipt of notice, because of financial constraints and also because she is a single parent and had to undertake the responsibility of the medical treatment of her daughter and also as her son was taken into custody, the petitioner suffered mental trauma and could not manage to collect all relevant documents necessary in support of her contentions required to be made before the Tribunal. After her son was granted bail and after her daughter was discharged from the hospital, she contacted the learned counsel and submitted some documents in support of her case. However, because of her inability to appear before the Tribunal on the relevant dates, the Tribunal by the impugned order 26-02-2020 proceeded ex-parte and answered the reference in affirmative and declared her to be a foreigner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of the learned Tribunal is defective as the very reference which was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Kamrup (M) is not maintainable and therefore, the learned Tribunal exceeded it’s jurisdiction in answering the reference in affirmative. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the Local Verification Officer’s (LVO’s) report reveals that there is no finding that the petitioner belongs to any of the places within the meaning of ‘Specified Territory’ as defined under section 6(A) (1)(c) of the Citizenship Act 1955. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is the daughter of Late Dhaman Bahadur Chetri who expired on 11-10-1986 and whose nationality is reflected as Indian (Nepali) in the certificate issued by Health Department dated 03-10-1988. The learned counsel in support of her contention also refers to a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Indira Newar & Ors vs- Union of India & Ors reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 5890 : (2020) 5 Gau LR 502. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Indira Newar (Supra) and therefore, the writ petition should be allowed and the ex-parte order dated 26.02.2020 be set aside and quashed.

5. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. A. Kalita, advocate appearing for the State of Assam agrees to the submission made by the l