Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, SHAMIMA JAHAN
Nurjahan Begum, W/o. Abdul Khalek, D/o. Nurul Islam – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context of the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding the validity of ex-parte tribunal proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. judicial discretion to grant opportunity to defend in interest of justice. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. consequences of failure to comply with court-mandated timelines. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Medhi, J.
Considering the facts and circumstances and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage.
2. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed putting to challenge an order dated 09.08.2022 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Barpeta in FT Case No. 2855/2018 [IM(D)T Ref. No.1167/2K] whereby the petitioner has been declared a foreigner post 1971. The primary ground of challenge is that the order in question has been passed ex-parte.
3. We have heard Shri P.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Ms. S. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India, Ms. R.B. Bora, learned State Counsel and Shri. S.
Equitable relief under writ jurisdiction is discretionary and contingent upon the conduct of the party. Where a litigant demonstrates persistent negligence and fails to contest proceedings despite ad....
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 under the Foreigners Act remains with the individual, regardless of representation, and failure to provide evidence justifies a tribunal's determination of foreign n....
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 rests on the proceedee, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process.
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 court reaffirmed the necessity of adhering to prescribed legal procedures for notice service, emphasizing the right to contest findings affecting citizenship.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the petitioner, and failure to present evidence results in the Tribunal's decision being upheld unless jurisdictional errors or violations of natural jus....
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
