SAHIDUL ISLAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 4; Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 8 and 9; Mr. A. Hoque, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 3; and Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6.

(2.) The petitioner was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat for an opinion as to whether he is a person who entered the state of Assam from the specified territory subsequent to 25/3/1971. The order dtd. 2/7/2018 as per the order sheet reveals as extracted:

(3.) Due to non appearance of the petitioner an ex-parte opinion dtd. 30/10/2018 in FT Case no. 34/2011 was passed. Being aggrieved this writ petition is instituted. The petitioner takes a stand that he did not receive any notice from the tribunal requiring his appearance. The order dtd. 2/7/2018 makes it discernible that having failed to trace out the petitioner, the notice was displayed by pasting the same in a conspicuous place, without stating as to what was the conspicuous place. The said procedure that was adopted appears to be in deviation of the required procedure of the law, in as much as, the requirement of law is that the notice is to be pasted at the last known residential address of the proceedee in case he is untraceable, and it cannot at any convenient place as per the discretion of the tribunal and call it to be a conspicuous place.