JIBAN UDDIN AHMED ALIAS GIBANUDDIN S/O SAMSUL MIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge made in this writ petition is the ex parte judgment and order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (M) in FT No. 86/2010 by which the petitioner Md. Jiban Uddin Ahmed, son of Late Samsul Miya has been declared to be an illegal Bangladeshi migrant who entered into Assam after the cut off date, i.e. 25.03.1971. In the writ petition there is no plausible explanation as to why the petitioner after his initial response to the proceeding before the Tribunal did not respond any further to the said proceeding, which necessarily resulted in ex party proceeding. Law is well settled that in case of a reference suspecting the person to be a foreign national, the burden of proof lies on the person to establish that he is an Indian citizen. Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 envisages the said provision which has been elaborately discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (I) reported in AIR 2005 SC 2920.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.K. Barman, learned State counsel. None appears for the Union of India. I have also perused the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal. The reference against the petitioner was received from the Superintendent of Police (B), Kamrup (M) and on the basis of the same, a case was registered in the Tribunal and by order dated 14.06.2010 notice was issued to him fixing the matter on 27.07.2010.

(3.) AS regards to non-appearance of the petitioner on all subsequent dates, the petitioner has stated in paragraph-3 of the writ petition that after his first appearance he came back to his rented house at Guwahati and after a few months he went to his permanent house and thought that he had already been set free by the Tribunal. Thereafter when he came back to Guwahati he was arrested and he was apprised of the reasons for his arrest. In paragraph -5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he had appeared before the Tribunal on first date and thereafter he was not present on the next dates due to his ignorance of law.