Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Anowar Hussain @ Anowar @ Md. Annar Hussain – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1. Heard Shri S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri G. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Home Dept. and NRC, Shri M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC, Shri P. Sharma, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate and Ms. S. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, ECI.
2. Considering the subject matter involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself.
3. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging an opinion dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 7th, Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 384/2019 (reference F.T. Case No. 1036/04). By the aforesaid opinion, the petitioner has been declared an illegal migrant post 1971 stream.
4. Shri Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily based the present challenge on the contention that the impugned order has been passed ex parte against the petitioner without giving any reasonable opportunity.
5. By drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned opinion, the learned counsel has submitted that though there is an observation that notice
Failure to properly serve notice under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 renders Tribunal opinions invalid, requiring adherence to legal service protocols.
The court reaffirmed the necessity of adhering to prescribed legal procedures for notice service, emphasizing the right to contest findings affecting citizenship.
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.
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.
Lack of valid service of notice renders an ex-parte proceeding unsustainable in law.
The burden of proving citizenship under the Foreigners Act remains with the individual, regardless of representation, and failure to provide evidence justifies a tribunal's determination of foreign n....
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
