SAKINA KHATUN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India, Mr. U. K. Goswami, learned Central Govt. Counsel and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the State respondents.

(2.) By preferring this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an opinion rendered on 26/3/2017(sic)/ (26/3/2018) by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.8th, Barpeta in F.T. Case No.340/2016 arising out of IM(D)T Case No. 5687(A)/98 has been assailed, praying for interfering with the said opinion and for appropriate writ directing the respondents not to deport the petitioner from India.

(3.) The brief facts leading to the institution of this writ petition is that the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta, Assam had forwarded the case records of IM(D)T Case No. 5687(A)/98 to the Chairman, IM(D)T, Barpeta, which related to the present petitioner, for an opinion as to whether the proceedee/writ petitioner was an illegal migrant in the Country. This reference by the Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta, Assam has arisen out of a referral from the office of the Electoral Registration Officer for 40, Sorbhog Assembly Constituency whereby the said Electoral Registration Officer expressed doubt about the citizenship of the writ petitioner.