Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, PRANJAL DAS
Kasem Ali @ Md Abu Kasem And Ors. S/o Late Mafej Ali @ Mafej @ Mofizuddin – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Judgment & Order :
(S.K. Medhi , J.)
Heard Shri A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, NRC & Home Department; Shri P. Sarma, learned State Counsel and Shri H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI.
2. In this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made to an order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the st learned Foreigners' Tribunal (1), Morigaon, Assam in F.T(C) Case No. 162/2008 [Police Reference IM(D)T Case No. 107/01] declaring the petitioners as foreigners post 25.03.1971. It has been projected that the order impugned is an ex parte one.
3. Shri Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, by drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 19.11.2013, has submitted that the requirement of serving notice upon the petitioners was not fulfilled in accordance with law. In this regard, he has referred to the Foreigners' Tribunal Order 1964, more particularly, Order 3(5)(f). He has also referred to the report of the Process Server dated 16.08.2013, and has contended that a bare perusal of the report would show t
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 procedure for notice service must be strictly followed; deviations are not permissible as established by the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.
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.
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 Tribunal's proceedings were invalid due to lack of authorization, requiring annulment of the ex parte order.
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
