A written statement in Foreigners Act proceedings is insufficient without supporting evidence; proper proof is essential for establishing claims.

JUDGMENT :

M. Nandi, J.

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, Standing Counsel, FT matters; Mr. A.I. Ali, Standing Counsel, ECI; Mr. P.Sarmah, learned Senior Government Advocate and Mr. D.J. Das, learned CGC.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the opinion dated 07.03.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Chirang, Assam in Case No. BNGN/FT/CHR/491/07, declaring the petitioner as a foreigner of post25.03.1971 stream.

3. As it transpires from the material available on record, the petitioner responded to the notice issued by the Tribunal and also filed written statement on 19.03.2018. In the written statement, the petitioner stated that his father was late Jaynabuddin, son of Mahammad Ali @ Mahammad Chakidar and her mother’s name is Sonabhan Bibi. The name of her parents were enlisted on the voter lists of 1966, 1970, 1989 and 1997 under the village - Abdaguri No.2 under Bijni P.S, West Goalpara district and then under Bongaigaon district. It is also stated in the written statement that the petitioner’s name was recorded in the voter list of 1993 with her mother-in-law and her husband Abu Taleb Sheikh @ Abutal Sheikh.

4. As per written statement, the petitioner was born and brought up at village - No.2 Abdaguri. She has no formal education. On attaining the age of majority, she got married to one Abu Taleb Sheikh @ Abutal Sheikh, son of Bahal Sheikh of village - No.1, Bagiduara under Chirang district. The petitioner’s name also appeared in the voter list of 2016 along with her husband. It is further stated in the written statement that the name of petitioner’s father was also recorded in the voter list of 1966.

5. The further case of the petitioner is that though the earlier reference case was proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner as she did not receive the notice, ex-parte opinion was delivered on 20.09.2017, declaring the petitioner as a foreigner of post 1971 stream. Against the said opinion, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No.347/2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.01.2018, with a direction to remand the matter back to the Foreigners’ Tribunal for re-trial by setting aside the ex-parte opinion. As per direction of this Court, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed her written statement and exhibited 7 (seven) nos. of documents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidences on record in its true perspective and in a whimsical and arbitrary manner declared the petitioner as a foreigner of post 1971 stream which is perverse and liable to be set aside.

7. It is further submitted that in her written statement, the petitioner has clearly stated that her father’s name was late Jaynabuddin and his name was recorded in the voter list of 1970 vide Ext.1 and legacy data of 1966 vide Ext.2 which implies that she is not the daughter of late Johuruddin as stated in the reference.

8. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order of the Tribunal. The alternative prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to remand the matter for re-appreciation and evaluation of the evidences led before the Tribunal.

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following case laws-

1) (2022) 3 GLT 816 ( Karim Ali Vs. Union of India)

2) (2021) 4 GLT 664 ( Sujab Ali Vs. Union of India and others)

9. In response, the learned counsel for the FT matters submits that mere filing of written statement and oral testimony in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 could not be enough. The fact in issue would have to be proved by the proceedee by adducing documentary evidence which are admissible and relevant. The documents filed by the petitioner were not proved in any manner whatsoever and therefore, the