IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
N. Kotiswar Singh, Malasri Nandi, JJ.
NOOR ALAM @ NUR ALOM — Appellant
Vs.
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 7166 of 2021
Decided On : 07-01-2022
Service of Summons - Foreigners Act 1946 - The court set aside an ex-parte order declaring the petitioner a foreigner due to lack of valid service of notice. The process server's report indicated that the notice was affixed on a tree in a village, which was not in accordance with the law. The court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal and file necessary documents to support his claim of Indian citizenship.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an ex-parte order declaring him a foreigner under the Foreigners Act 1946, claiming he was not aware of the proceeding as he was not served with notice. The process server's report indicated that the notice was affixed on a tree in a village.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no valid service of notice upon the petitioner, and therefore, the ex-parte proceeding could not be sustained in law. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned ex-parte order and directing the petitioner to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal to establish his citizenship.
Issues: Validity of service of notice, petitioner's awareness of the proceeding, and the legality of the ex-parte order.
Ratio Decidendi: Lack of valid service of notice renders an ex-parte proceeding unsustainable in law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, setting aside the ex-parte order and directing the petitioner to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal to establish his citizenship.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned ASGI for respondent No. 1; Ms. Devi for respondent No. 4 as the learned Standing Counsel, NRC; Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, ECI for respondent No. 2; Ms. A. Verma, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal for respondent Nos. 3 & 6 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent No. 5.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the ex-parte order dated 15.06.2013 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh in F.T. Case No. 150/DBR/2012 (RE. No. 131/2012] by which the petitioner was declared a foreigner under Sec. 2(a) of the Foreigners Act 1946 who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner was not aware of the said proceeding.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been submitted that the petitioner, who is a resident of Chirang district and had gone to Dibrugarh for work under a contractor. However, after the work, the petitioner came back to his native place in Chirang district. In the meantime, the aforesaid proceeding was initiated before the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh of which he was not aware of as he was not served with notice for the said proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal.
5. In support of the petitioner's claim, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the report prepared by the Process Server, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The relevant portion of the report of the Process Server reads as follows, With due respect I beg to state that according to the deployment mentioned in the notice when I went to the place and interrogated the locals living there then I came to know that there was no one named as above mentioned person therefore notice could not be served. Hence a copy of notice is affixed on a tree in a populous area in front of two witnesses and another copy is dispatched to the Hon'ble Court.
6. We are of the view that the manner in which the process was sought to be served as mentioned above by affixing on a tree in the village is not contemplated under the law.
7. As regards this defect in the service of summons, Ms. Verma, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal also fairly admits that the manner in which the process was sought to be served as reflected in the Process Server's report is not in accordance with law.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid ex-parte order only in the month of November, 2021 as mentioned in Para No. 3 of the writ petition.
9. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that since there was no valid service of notice upon the petitioner, the ex-parte proceeding cannot be sustained in law even if the said opinion was rendered on 15.06.2013.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned ex-parte order dated 15.06.2013 passed by learned Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh in FT. Case No. 150/DBR/2012 [RE. No. 131/2021].
11. Petitioner is, accordingly, directed to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh on or before 10.02.2022 and will file his written statement and necessary documents in support of his claim that he is an Indian citizen, not a foreigner. The learned Tribunal after hearing the petitioner and on the basis of appreciation of the evidence that may be adduced by the petitioner will render a fresh opinion as regards the citizenship of the petitioner.
12. Since the citizenship of the petitioner is under cloud, he will appear before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dibrugarh within 15 (fifteen) days and furnish a bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the said authority where after he shall be allowed to remain on bail. On such appearance, the Super
Lack of valid service of notice renders an ex-parte proceeding unsustainable in law.
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.
Proper procedure for notice service must be strictly followed; deviations are not permissible as established by the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.
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.
Proper service of notice is essential for a fair legal process and the validity of judgments.
In the interest of natural justice, appellate courts may exercise extraordinary discretion to set aside ex-parte orders and grant a fresh opportunity for a hearing where citizenship status is at stak....
The Tribunal's proceedings were invalid due to lack of authorization, requiring annulment of the ex parte order.
When an ex-parte order regarding citizenship status is challenged on grounds of improper service of summons, courts may exercise discretionary jurisdiction to set aside the order and grant an opportu....
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.