MD. AJIBOR RAHMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who has been declared to be a foreigner (illegal Bangladeshi migrant) by the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (Rural), Assam, vide order dated 25/03/2013 in GFT (R) Case No. 102/2012 corresponding Police Case No. 478/2011 (Union of India Vs. Ajibar Rahman), has filed the instant writ petition challenging the said order.

(2.) AS has been claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner is a citizen of India being a permanent resident of village - Goraimari, Bilorjan in the district of Kamrup (R). According to him he was born in the year 1976 in the said village, however, he was also tdemporarily residing in a rented house of one Md. Azizur Rahman at Momaikatagarh (Changsari) under Kamalpur Police Station. He has projected his grandfather as Falu Sheikh whose name appeared in the NRC of 1966. The petitioner has also claimed that his parents ' names (Mozibor Rahman and Hazera Khatun) appeared in the voters ' list of 1977. He has also referred to the 1997 voters ' list incorporating the name of his projected grandfather Falu Sheikh. It is the further case of the petitioner that his great grandfather 's name is Haji Monsob Ali @ Monsob Bepari and his name was incorporated in the 1966 voters ' list. The petitioner has further stated in the writ petition that his name was incorporated in 1997 voters ' list. Further case of the petitioner is that his great grandfather 's name also appeared in a land document executed in the year 1952.

(3.) AS to what are the documents the petitioner has referred to has been noted above. As has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Moslem Mondal and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2010 (2) GLT 1, the writ proceeding is not a substitute for a proceeding before the Tribunal. If certain new materials are brought in the writ proceeding not forming part of the proceeding before the Tribunal, it has been held in the said judgement that the Writ Court cannot examine the said new materials/evidence. It has been held that the Writ Court does not enjoy original jurisdiction to determine the citizenship of a person on the basis of the new materials brought on record in the writ proceeding. It has further been held that the Writ Court can only examine those materials which were placed before the Tribunal.