IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manash Ranjan Pathak, Mitali Thakuria, JJ.
Dulal Das S/o Late Prafulla Das - Appellant
Vs.
The Union Of India To Be Represented By Secy. To The Govt. Of India, Home Deptt., North Block, New Delhi - Respondent
WP(C) No. 72 Of 2021
Decided On : 03-01-2024
Foreigners Act - Declaration of Foreigner - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 3(5)(f), Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 - The court set aside the ex parte order declaring the petitioner as a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and directed the petitioner to contest the case by filing a Written Statement and producing relevant documents to prove his nationality. The court found that the service of notice was not proper and the rejection of the prayer for vacating the ex parte order was merely on technical grounds.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was declared as a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946, by an ex parte order. The petitioner filed a writ petition to set aside the ex parte order and to contest the case by providing evidence of his nationality.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the service of notice was not proper and the rejection of the prayer for vacating the ex parte order was merely on technical grounds. The court set aside the ex parte order and directed the petitioner to contest the case by providing evidence of his nationality.
Issues: Service of notice, rejection of prayer for vacating the ex parte order, and the petitioner's right to contest the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the service of notice was not proper and the rejection of the prayer for vacating the ex parte order was merely on technical grounds. The court directed the petitioner to contest the case by providing evidence of his nationality.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the ex parte order, and directed the petitioner to contest the case by providing evidence of his nationality.
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
M. Thakuria, J.
This writ petition is against the ex parte order/opinion dated 17.05.2017 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in Case No. FT/H/2175/2012, whereby the petitioner has been declared as a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946, who had illegally entered into the territory of India after 25.03.1971.
2. Though, the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, who passed the said ex parte order dated 17.05.2017 has been made a party respondent No. 8 herein, but according to us the said respondent is not a necessary party for proper adjudication of the case. Accordingly, the respondent No. 8 be struck off from the cause title.
3. Heard Mr. N. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.
I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for respondent No. 2; Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Assam for respondent Nos. 3, 5 & 7 and Mr. R. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No. 6.
4. In pursuance of a reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border) of Nagaon District (as it was then, now Hojai), Case No. FT/H/2175/2012 was accordingly registered against the present petitioner before the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar. Considering that even after proper service of the notice of the case, as the proceedee (the petitioner herein) remained absent in the matter, the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar on 17.05.2017 in said Case No. FT/H/2175/2012 passed the ex parte order opining him as a foreigner, who had illegally entered into the territory of India after 25.03.1971.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned ex parte order of the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar dated 17.05.2017, passed in Case No. FT/H/2175/2012, noted above, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 14.12.2020 praying amongst others, for setting aside the said ex parte order dated 17.05.2017 and to allow him to contest the said Case No. FT/H/2175/2012 by filing his Written Statement as well as the relevant documents to prove his nationality.
6. It is submitted by Mr. N. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner that he is an Indian citizen by birth and he was born at village Khring Khring under erstwhile jurisdiction of Hojai, now Kaki of earlier Nagaon District, now Hojai District of Assam. It is stated that the petitioner along with his parents cast their votes regularly. The petitioner stated that he did not receive any notice from the Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in said Case No. FT/H/2175/2012 and on coming to know about the said ex parte order dated 17.05.2017 declaring him as a foreigner of post 1971 stream, he immediately applied for the certified copy of the said order and after obtaining the same, he on 03.09.2019 filed an application before the Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar praying for vacating the said ex-parte order dated 17.05.2017. But the said learned Tribunal did not consider the same. As such, he preferred the present petition praying to set aside and quash the impugned ex-parte order dated 17.05.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Islam further submitted that if the petitioner is allowed to contest the case by setting aside the ex parte order passed against him, he has sufficient evidence and documents to prove his nationality/citizenship. The learned counsel further submitted that during the time of NOC verification only, the petitioner could come to know about the said ex parte order dated 17.05.2017 passed against him in said Case No. FT/H/2175/2012 by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, in which he never received any notice/summon from the said Foreigners Tribunal and that the said ex parte order dated 17.05.2017 was passed against him wit
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 main legal point established is that the right to a reasonable opportunity to prove nationality and procedural fairness are essential in nationality determination cases under the Foreigners Act, ....
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.
The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and opportunity to be heard in nationality proceedings, ruling that lack of notification constituted a denial of due process.
Lack of valid service of notice renders an ex-parte proceeding unsustainable in law.
Proper service of notice is essential for a fair legal process and the validity of judgments.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the claimant, and review petitions cannot be used to challenge merits unless clear errors or new evidence arise.
Proper procedure for notice service must be strictly followed; deviations are not permissible as established by the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.
The Tribunal's proceedings were invalid due to lack of authorization, requiring annulment of the ex parte order.
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.