ANOWAR HUSSAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri G.Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Home Dept. and NRC, Shri M.R.Adhikari, learned CGC, Shri P. Sharma, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate and Ms. S. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, ECI. Considering the subject matter involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself.

(2.) The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging an opinion dtd. 28/8/2024 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 7th, Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 384/2019 (refer-ence F.T. Case No.1036/04). By the aforesaid opinion, the petitioner has been declared an illegal migrant post 1971 stream. Shri Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily based the present challenge on the contention that the impugned order has been passed ex parte against the petitioner without giving any reasonable opportunity. By drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned opinion, the learned counsel has submitted that though there is an observation that notice was deemed to be served as per the provisions of Order 3 (5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, (herein-after, the Order of 1964) there was no fulfilment of the aforesaid provision of law. He has submitted that as per the impugned opinion itself, the copy of the notice was affixed in the Office of the Gaonburah which is not one of the prescription of the law relating to service of notice. He has submitted that due to the lack of information regarding the proceeding, the petitioner could not contest the same resulting in the impugned opinion.

(3.) Shri G. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that though certain observations have been made in the impugned opinion regarding service of notice upon the petitioner proceedee, the same does not appear to be in strict conformity of the requirement of Order 3 (5) (f) of the Order of 1964. He submits that in case the proceedee changes the place of residence or place of work, notice has to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house where the proceedee ordinarily resides.