ANIMA SUTRADHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has challenged the impugned judgment and order passed ex-parte dated 16.11.05 whereby she has been declared as foreigner in F.T. Case No. 189/2004. According to petitioner, on receipt of the notice from the Foreigners Tribunal, she made her appearance on 10.6.04. She filed her written statement along with documents showing her as Indian citizen. The case was fixed on 15.6.04 for hearing and order but, however, on that day, the matter was not taken up and no date was given in the case. By an order dated 16.11.05 she was been declared as foreigner by the learned Tribunal, which she came to know only this year. The contention of the petitioner is that as she has filed the written statement she was not informed about the next date of hearing fixed by the learned Tribunal. So she was under the impression that the matter was settled and she is not required to appear again. She lost her contract with the engaged lawyer and as such, she was totally unaware about the case.

(2.) Further contention of the petitioner is that though the court issued 2nd notice afresh after the matter was fixed for hearing on 15.6.04 but no notice served upon her and as such it is alleged that the proceeding before the learned Tribunal is illegal and the ex parte order dated 16.11.05 is liable to be set aside, as she has sufficient document to prove her case that she is an Indian national. By filing an additional affidavit the petitioner further affirmed that no 2nd notice was received by her and although in the 2nd notice her signature appears but same is not her signature and other two persons whose names appear in the 2nd notice as witness namely Nakul Sutradhar and Phanindra Sutradhar are her brother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. Whereas her father-in-law Phanindra Sutr-adhar expired on 27.1.1988. Her brother-in-law Nakul Sutradhar could not remember receiving any notice from the Tribunal where he signed as witness.

(3.) Considered the submission of Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner who has strenuously urged before the Court that the petitioner has appropriate documents in her possession to prove her citizenship. Had the learned Tribunal given her a proper chance for hearing on the matter, she could have proved her case and it has also been contended that in view of non-service of 2nd notice upon the petitioner, the ex-parte order so passed is liable to be set aside. Thus it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed manifest error while declaring the petitioner as a foreigner without considering the written statement and documents so filed by the petitioner.