MD ABDUL KABIR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application, the two petitioners who are brothers seek to challenge the judgments and orders dated 17-11-2003 passed by the Illegal Migrants (D) Appellate Tribunal, Assam in Appeal Case Nos. 26/2003 and 27/2003 affirming the judgments dated 7-3-2003 passed by the Illegal Migrants (D) Tribunal, Jorhat in IM (D) T Case No. JDT 88/2000 and IM(D)T Case No. JDT 89/2000 by which the petitioners have been held to be illegal migrants within the meaning of S. 3(c) of the IM(D)T Act (Act 39 of 1983) and answering the reference made to it by the Superintendent of Police (B), Jorhat under S. 8(1) of the IM(D)T Act.

(2.) Upon a reference as aforesaid, the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Jorhat (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") registered IM(D)T Case No. JDT 89/2000 and IM(D)T Case No. JDT.88/2000 respectively against the petitioners. Upon notice to the petitioners they appeared before the Tribunal and adduced evidence. The Tribunal on perusal of the evidence on record and upon elaborate and detailed discussion answered the reference whether the petitioners are illegal migrants within the meaning of S. 3(c) of the aforesaid Act, held the petitioners to be illegal migrants. The Tribunal passed two separate orders making reference to each other in respect of aforesaid two references on the same date i.e. 7-3-2003. Being aggrieved the petitioners preferred two separate appeals viz. Appeal Case No. 26/2003 and 27/2003 before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Appellate Tribunal, Assam, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Tribunal"). The Appellate Tribunal upon a threadbare discussion of the evidence on record and upon scrutiny of the judgments of the Tribunal dismissed the appeals by its common judgment dated 17-11-2003 affirming the judgments of the Tribunal.

(3.) The petitioners who were the opposite parties and appellants before the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal have now invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing the legality and validity of the aforesaid judgments. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents. On being pointed out the scope of judicial review in such matters, more particularly in view of concurrent findings of fact of both the Courts below and that the writ Court will not sit on appeal over such finding of facts by way of reappreciating the evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly agreed to such proposition of law. He, however, submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and based on no evidence. However, apart from making a general statement relating to perversity of findings, nothing could be pointed out to substantiate such a submission.