(1.) Mr.SB Rahman and Mr.A W Aman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.SC Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for Respondent No.1, Mr. BN Sarma, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, assisted by Mr.G Sarma, learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Sri Mihir Biswas has prayed for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the authorities to release him from illegal detention and also for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities to treat the petitioner as an Indian citizen by not deporting him from India.
(2.) According to the petitioner, his father-Mahindra Nath Biswas (since deceased)- entered into India via Banpur Check-post on 1.2.1966 (Annexure-1) from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) at the time of civil disturbance and then settled in Garaputa village under Nadia District of West Bengal. His father also bought a plot of land at Garaputa village by executing a deed of sale on 23.06.1967. The petitioner was born in that village in the year 1972 and later migrated to Malda District with his parents. In the year 2009, the Election Commission of India issued a certificate in his name (Annexure-2).
(3.) The petitioner, however, shifted his place of stay to Guwahati in the year 1986-87 and started working in a garage. But the police authorities contemplated to deport him to Bangladesh. In one of such bids, he was even taken to the border of Bangladesh and was tried to be deported. But as the authorities of Bangladesh denied accepting him, he was abandoned in the border itself. In the year 2007, the police authorities again tried to deport him and then, being aggrieved, he preferred a writ petition being W.P(C) No. 6513/2007. The said petition was disposed of on 26.06.2007 (Annexure-3) with a direction to the authorities to take action in the matter strictly in accordance with the provisions of Immigrant (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950. It was also directed that while doing so, the authorities shall decide as to whether protection under proviso to Section 2 of that Act, may also be extended to the petitioner or not.