RUNUPA KHATUN Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2013, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal -III, Barpeta Assam, in F.T. Case No. 20/III/07 (IMDT REF case No. 3116/1997 dated 28.05.1998), State of Assam v. Kanuwa Begum. I have heard Ms. S. sultana, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. M. Bhagabati, learned CGC and Mrs. H.M. Phukan, learned State Counsel. I have also considered the entire materials on record, including the records received from the Tribunal.

(2.) AS will be evident from the records of the case, long 16 years have gone by since the particular reference was made against the petitioner suspecting her to be a foreign national, who entered into Assam after the cut off date i.e. 25.03.1971.

(3.) AFTER scraping the IMDT Act by the Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, reported in : AIR 2005 SC 2920, a fresh notice was served on the petitioner, on receipt of which, she appeared and filed Written Statement on 25.06.2007. The LVO and another witness, namely, Moinul Hoque, Gaonburah of village Barmara were summoned and were examined on oath by the Tribunal on 26.09.2008 and 02.01.2009, respectively. On the other hand, the petitioner prayed for time to adduce her evidence. The records have revealed that on all subsequent dates, the case was to be adjourned mostly due to absence of the petitioner and on 13.08.2009, her engaged counsel filed a petition praying for permission to withdraw the Vokalat Nama on the ground of non -cooperation on the part of the petitioner. The petition was allowed and fresh notice was issued to the petitioner, on receipt of which, she again appeared on 27.10.2009 along with her newly engaged counsel and submitted a petition to allow her to file written statement. The prayer was allowed. Thereafter on the 7th date fixed for filling written statement, the petitioner filed her 2nd written statement on 26.03.2010. But on subsequent three consecutive dates fixed for relevant documents, she remained absent without any steps. On the 4th date, she appeared along with her engaged counsel and filed a petition, showing cause of her absence and prayed for further time, which was allowed. On the next three dates also, petitions were filed on her behalf praying for time, which was allowed.