JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

[N. Kotiswar Singh, J.]

Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC, appearing for respondent No.1; Mr. G. Sarma, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6; Ms. B. Das, learned standing counsel, ECI, appearing for respondent No.3 and Ms. L. Devi, learned standing counsel, NRC, appearing for respondent No.4.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned ex-parte order dated 05.06.2014 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal (2nd), Sonitpur, Tezpur, Assam, in F.T. Case No.284/2012 (S.P. Case No.1598/2002), by which one Smt. Rima Das, W/O Sri Dinesh Das, Village- Brahmajan, PS-Gohpur, District-Sonitpur, Assam, has been declared as a foreigner.

3. The petitioner claims that though the petitioner received a notice from the Foreigners' Tribunal, it was addressed to Smt. Rima Das, W/O Dinesh Das, R/o Brahmajan, PS-Gohpur, District-Sonitpur (Assam). It has been submitted that though the present petitioner is not “Rima Das”, but “Rina Rani Das”, as the description of the husband and the address bears resemblance, the petitioner accepted the said notice. However, subsequently realising that the proceedee, “Rima Das” is not the petitioner, i.e., “Rina Rani Das”, the petitioner did not attend the proceeding before the Tribunal. In the meantime, the learned Foreigners' Tribunal on the basis of the said notice which was served upon the petitioner, proceeded ex-parte and held the proceedee as a foreigner, who had entered India after 25.03.1971, vide its ex-parte order dated 05.06.2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would not have approached this Court, but for the fact that the police have started looking for her on the strength of the said ex-parte order dated 05.06.2014 passed in F.T. Case No.284/2012. Though the name of the proceedee is one Smt. Rima Das, because of the fact that the proceedee also has been described as the wife of Sri Dinesh Das, resident of Brahmajan, PS-Gohpur, District-Sonitpur, Assam, who is the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner has been put into a dilemma and serious inconveniences.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even if the petitioner is said to be the said proceedee, as mentioned in the notice, the proceeding had been initiated on the allegation that the proceedee had entered India between 01.01.1966 and before 25.03.1971 and not an immigrant of post 25.03.1971. Thus, even if it is assumed, though not admitted, that the proceedee entered India between the aforesaid period of 01.01.1966 and before 25.03.1971, such a proceedee would be protected from deportation or being declared a foreigner permanently, since, as such a person can register himself/herself with the competent registering authority and thereafter, get citizenship of this country after 10 years of such declaration as provided under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. However, the learned Tribunal, instead of examining the said issue in the reference as mentioned in the notice that the proceedee is an entrant during the aforesaid period of 01.01.1966 and before 25.03.1971, proceeded to give an ex-parte finding that the proceedee is a post 25.03.1971 entrant in Assam. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opinion is illegal, apart from the fact that it was ex-parte. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the ex-parte order dated 05.06.2014. It has been submitted that if necessary, the petitioner may be given an opportunity to explain before the Tribunal that she is a genuine Indian citizen, so that the cloud created by the ex-parte order dated 05.06.2014 passed by the learned Foreigners' Tribunal (2nd), Sonitpur, Tezpur, Assam, is lifted.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also upon perusal of the materials on record, we are also of the opinion that if the contention of the petitioner is true that sh