KAMAL DEBNATH Vs. MEMBER FOREINERS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the order (i) dated 15.7.89 (Annexure-B) passed by the Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Guwahati (for snort, 'the Tribunal') in M.F.T. Case No. 1780/89 arising out of Police Case No. 114/89 and (ii) the order dated 28.2.90 passed by the Tribunal in M.F.T. Case No. 1962/90 arising out of Police Case No.763/89. Apart from challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have also challenged the Notification No.PLB. 120/ 86 dated 24.4.86 (Annx.D) as issued by the respondent Government of Assam on the ground of excessive deliberation and uncanalised discriminatory power conferred on the Tribunal.

(2.) The petitioners claim citizenship of India by birth and are permanent residents of Karnrup, Assam, So far as Labanya is cancerned, it is seen from the impugned order Annexure-B that it was passed ex parte on the very first day of return of service of notice. It is not to suggest that the petitioner can take the Truibonal proceeding for granted but she has assigned a good cause for her non-appearance. Clause (3)(1) of the Foreigners Tribunal Order prescribes procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in disposal of question referred to it. A reasonable opportunity of hearing including producing of evidence in support of his or her case is contemplated by the procedure prescribed. It is the grievance of Labanya that she has no opportunity to file her representation or to file any oral or documentary evidence. Considering the consequences of the impugned order, to my mind, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioners. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into the question of virus of the notification as challenged by the petitioner.

(3.) A Similar grievance has been made by petitioner Kamal Debnath who on account of his illness, suffering from acute infective hepatitis as per Annexure-E could not get his name registered. The Tribunal, going through the impugned order dated 28.2.90 Annexure-C, it is evident that the Tribunal has not taken into account this aspect of the matter. It needs consideration. Therefore, without going into the question of virus as raised by the petitioner, the impugned orders dated 15.7.89, 28.2.89 as passed by the Tribunal and the order dated 11.6.90 passed by Superintendent of Police, Kamnip Annexure-F are set aside.