ORDER

Date : 24-09-2018 ( Prasanta Kumar Deka J)

Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. G. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4; Mr. A. I. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 as well as Ms. A. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

The order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.9th, Dhubri in F. T. Case No. FT-9 /121 /GKJ/ 2017 under the reference IM(D)T Case No. 2739/98 is put under challenge. The impugned order was passed exparte and while passing the order the learned Member of the Tribunal recorded the manner in which the notice was issued to the present petitioner which is reproduced hereinbelow:

“ Accordingly, after registration of the case, notice was issued to the O.P to appear and to file written statement (W.S in short) and to produce evidence in support of her citizenship. On perusal of the service report, it is found that in pursuant to the notice, the process server went to the address mentioned in the notice and after enquiry from the local village people came to know that the O.P was not traced in the aforesaid village and nobody can say where about of the O.P. As such the O.P. changed his place of residence without intimation to the investigating agency. Due to the aforesaid circumstances, the process server affixed/pasted a copy of the notice on a road side house of vill- Bidyardabri Pt.-II as shown or identified by Witnesses Sanowar Sk.(Age 58 years) S/o – Lt. Ajgar Ali Sk. Vill-Lohajani, P.S. Golakganj, Dist.- Dhubri (Assam) and Wahaf Ali Sk. S/0- Lt.Jalal Sk. Vill- Lohajani, P.S. Golakganj; Dist. Dhubri(Assam) and as such, in view of the said Service reports of the process server, notice has been dully served in the manners as provided under 3(5)(F) of the Foreigner’s(Tribunal) Order, 1964.”

From the aforesaid recording it is seen that the learned Member expressed his satisfaction on the service of notice on the petitioner which is to our considered opinion, is wrong and the same amounts to an error apparent on the face of the order itself. As per order 3(5) (f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order 1964, it is stipulated that if the proceedee has changed the place of residence or place of work without intimation to the investigating agency, the Process Server shall affix a copy of the notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous place of the house in which the proceedee originally resides or last resided. The said exercise of affixing a copy of the notice must be carried out in presence of witness who identifies the house and in whose presence the copy was affixed. From the order referred herein above, it is seen that pursuant to the issuance of notice, the Process Server went to the address mentioned in the notice and after enquiry from the local village people came to know that the opposite party was not traced out in the aforesaid village and nobody can say the whereabout of the opposite party. Such reading of the Process Server is sufficient to hold that the opposite party changed his residence without intimation to the investigating agency. The Process Server affixed a copy of the notice on a road side house as shown by witness. There is no mention that the said house was the last residential place of the present petitioner and in our considered view, the manner in which the notice was served was not proper and the learned Member of the Tribunal erred in acceptance of the said report of the Process Server.

Accordingly, the exparte order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.9, Dhubri in F. T. Case No. FT-9 /121 /GKJ/ 2017 on the reference IM (D)T Case No. 2739/98 is accordingly, set aside.

The petitioner shall appear on 5.10.2018 before the said Tribunal alongwith her written statement and thereafter the proceeding shall be completed within a period of 60(sixty) days from 5.10.2018.

No fresh notice needs to be iss