HOWAH KHATUN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Mohammed, learned State Counsel and Ms. P. Barua, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal; learned ASGI. I have also considered the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 27.11.2013 of the Foreigners Tribunal No. III, Barpeta passed in F.T. Case No. 39(III)/2011 (IMDT Ref. Case No. 3429/B/98) (State of Assam Vs. Howah Khatun). By the said order, the learned Tribunal has opined that the petitioners are foreigners of post 25.3.1971.

(2.) Referring to the Annexure -6 verification report, Mr. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no proper verification to find out as to whether the petitioner is a foreigner or not. According to him, the reference against the petitioner started with a mechanical approach. Countering the said argument, both Mr. N. Mohammed, learned State Counsel and Ms. P. Barua, learned counsel representing the Union of India have submitted that the petitioner having failed to discharge the burden of proof as envisaged under Sec. 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, cannot now turn around so as to question the very reference.

(3.) The reference against the petitioner was on the basis of the doubt that arose when her name came to be included in the draft electoral roll that was published on 24.7.1997. The draft electoral roll was prepared pursuant to the order of the Election Commission of India. The same was carried out in reference to 1.1.1997 as qualifying date. House to house enumeration was done during the period from 16.1.1997 to 15.4.1997. Responding to the notice received from the Tribunal, the petitioner submitted her evidence on affidavit as DW -1 and submitted the following documents: