ISMAIL ALI, S/O. LATE ABDUL RAHMAN, VILLAGE & P.O. BAMUNBARI TNIALI, P.S. TINGKHONG, DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.J. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State counsel and Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel representing the Union of India. I have also perused the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal.

(2.) The challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 29/11/2008 of the Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh passed in case No. FT 39/06 (PE No. 882/2001) (DDT No 1663/2002) (State Vs. Ismail Ali) . By the said order the learned Tribunal discussing the entire evidence on record, declared the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25/03/1971. According to the petitioner, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record and illegally declared the petitioner to be a foreign national. On perusal of the records received from the Tribunal, it is found that before the Tribunal, the petitioner produced the purported certified copy of the NRC of 1951. However, on a bare perusal of the said document, no signature of the issuing authority is discernible. Moreover, the value of the tickets affixed to the folio is 50P and 25P which are also not punched. The columns pertaining to date of application; date fixed for notifying the requisite number of stamps and folios; date of delivery of the requisite stamps and folio ; date on which the copies were ready for delivery and date of making over the copy to the applicant, are all blank. This aspect of the matter has been discussed in the impugned judgement.

(3.) In the said documents, names of A Rahman, Amuja Khatun, Lalmia and Hasmat Bibi appeared showing Amuja as wife of A. Rahman. A Rahman is shown as son of Jalal. Lalmia is shown as son of Jalal and Hasmat Bibi as wife of Lalmia. The petitioner also produced photocopy (extract only) of 1961 voters list so as to project that A. Rahman son of Jalaluddin and Asia Khatun wife of A. Rahman appearing against Sl. No. 334 and 335 are his parents. On the other hand, as noted above, in the purported NRC of 1951, his projected mother’s name is Amuja Khatun. This aspect of the matter has also been discussed in the impugned judgement. The other two documents produced before the Tribunal are that of certificates of the Gaonbura dated 20/10/2008 and 27/08/2002 certifying that the petitioner is known to them. Needless to say that Xerox/photocopy of the documents is inadmissible in evidence. Even otherwise also, as has been held by the Apex Court in L.I.C. of India and Anr. Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen reported in 2010 (4) SCC 491 , mere production of some documents or exhibiting the same without proving the contents thereof is not enough. In this connection, para 31 of the judgement is quoted below:-