MUBARAK ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. We have also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, FT, Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Central Govt. Counsel and Ms. B. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal [1 st], Morigaon, Assam, in F.T. Case No.628/2010 whereby, the writ petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream. By the impugned order the learned Tribunal has also directed the police to initiate proceedings against the wife, children and mother of the writ petitioner.

(3.) By referring to the impugned order Mr. Mahmud submits that the voters' list containing the name of the petitioner's father Rahmat Ali prepared in the years 1966 and 1970 has been adduced in evidence. That apart, the voters' list containing the name of the petitioner along with his father "Rahmat" appearing in the year 2005 has also been placed on record before the learned Tribunal. However, by ignoring such documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has rendered its opinion against the petitioner. It is also the submission of Mr. Mahmud that due to lapses on the part of the petitioner's lawyer, some vital evidence, in support of the petitioner's case, could not be brought on record. As such, the learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to adduce fresh evidence in the reference case.