SAMAD ALI @ SAMAT ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the appellant, who was the ' writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 3907/2009 has challenged the order, dated 16.09.2009, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) No. 3907/2009 and the order, dated 19.05.2008, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (M) in FTC No. 518/2005. The appellant/writ petitioner's case is that he is a citizen of India and permanent resident of Teklarbala, P.O. Pohumara, P.S. Barpeta, in the district of Barpeta, Assam. The Azara police in connection with Azara P.S. Case No. 665/06 made a reference to the Illegal Migrants Determination Tribunal (in short IMDT), as it was then, by registering a case, being case No. 518/05 alleging that the petitioner, being a Bangladeshi National entered India (Assam) after 25.03.1971 and illegally resided in Assam without due permission from the Government of India. The said reference was converted into a proceeding under the Foreigners Act and accordingly FTC No. 443/07 was registered. The Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati, issued notice to the petitioner and accordingly he appeared and submitted some documents in support of his claim regarding Indian citizenship. However, subsequently, the petitioner failed to appear before the Tribunal and substantiate his claim by adducing any evidence.. Accordingly, the learned Member of the Foreigners Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 19.5.08, ex-parte, disposed of the case declaring the petitioner as Foreigners observing that he entered Assam after 25.03.1971.

(2.) According to the petitioner, after receipt of notice from the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (M) he submitted necessary documents, in support of his claim regarding citizenship, with the office clerk of the tribunal, who also assured him that those documents, being genuine, would be placed with the case record and that the proceeding would be closed, very soon. Therefore, as pleaded by the petitioner, he being a poor illiterate and ignorant person, under bonafide believe that his documents would be accepted in his favour, did not appear before the tribunal. But, the Tribunal decided the case, ex-parte, without taking into account the said document placed before it. He has also pleaded that his non-appearance was due to his ignorance and lack of knowledge and information about the legal proceedings.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said ex-parte order the appellant, as writ petitioner, challenged the said order by filing the writ petition aforesaid and a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the same observing that, as the tribunal was required to deliver its judgment in accordance with provisions of law, on the basis of documents, submitted before him, the tribunal committed no error by refusing to accept the petitioner's claim, on the ground that petitioner's name was not included in the NRC, wherein the name of Kadam Ali and Asik Ali, who were grand father and the father respectively of the writ petitioner were recorded and that the said documents were not proved.