FAZAR ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. AR Sikder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L Devi, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 being the authorities under the Union of India, Ms. A Verma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 being the authorities under the Home Department of the Government of Assam and Ms. M Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 being the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta.

(2.) Fazar Ali, S/O Mohammad of village Domoni PS Barpeta Road of Barpeta district was noticed by the Foreigners Tribunal II, Barpeta requiring him to respond in respect of Case No. 437/2015. But the notice was served on Fazar Ali, S/O Maku Para-manik of village Domoni.

(3.) Fazar Ali, S/O Maku Paramanik upon being served the notice entered appearance before the Tribunal, filed written statement taking a specific stand that he is Fazar Ali, S/O Maku Paramanik of village Domoni and not Fazar Ali, S/O Mohammad of village Domoni to whom the notice was actually addressed. But the Tribunal inspite of the specific stand being taken that notice was served on a person other than to whom the notice was addressed, ignored the same and continued the proceeding against Fazar Ali, S/O Maku Paramanik of village Domoni. Fazar Ali, S/O Maku Paramanik accordingly made an attempt to discharge the burden that he is a citizen of India. But the Tribunal took a view in its opinion dtd. 29/11/2016 in F.T. Case No. 437/2015 that the materials produced by Fazar Ali, S/O Maku Paramanik is not in respect of the person to whom the notice was addressed i.e. Fazar Ali, S/O Mohammad and therefore, rejected the claim of the petitioner Fazar Ali, S/O Maku Paramanik and declared him to be a foreigner.