Back
M. R. PATHAK, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Md. Sohar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. M. Rana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Swargiary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Government counsel for the respondent No. 1, Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 3.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Md. Sohar @ Shahar Ali impugning the ex parte opinion/order, dated 17.08.2016, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, Abhayapuri, District-Bongaigaon in the Case No. BNGN/FT/2093/2007, whereby he was declared as a foreigner, under the Foreigners Act, 1946 who had illegally entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971.
3. The petitioner has also impugned the order dated 29.11.2016, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, Abhayapuri in the Misc. Case No. 23/2016, arising out of Case No. BNGN/FT/2093/2007, whereby the learned Tribunal had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte opinion/order, dated 17.08.2016, passed by th
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.
The court emphasized the importance of natural justice in citizenship determinations, allowing the petitioner another opportunity to prove Indian citizenship due to procedural irregularities and heal....
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 burden of proving citizenship lies with the proceedee under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and failure to participate in proceedings results in the declaration of foreigner status.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the proceedee, and failure to contest leads to the presumption of foreign nationality.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual, requiring credible documentary evidence to substantiate claims of nationality.
The judgment establishes that the burden of proof for citizenship lies with the individual, requiring admissible and reliable evidence to counter claims of foreign status.
The principle of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial decisions, requiring reasoned orders for binding effect in subsequent proceedings.
The burden of proving citizenship rests on the proceedee, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
