REJIA KHATOON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitioners, declared as foreigners and illegal migrants to India (Assam) by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court questioning the concurrent findings. Both the writ petitions being similar in nature involving the similar circumstances, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. FACTS IN W. P. (C) No. 5280/06

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the wife of one Md. Jabbor Ali and daughter of one Ajimuddin Sheikh @ Ujnuddin of Village Nagagota, Simlitola under P. S. Simlitola and P. S. Matia in the District of Goalpara (Assam ). On a reference being made suspecting the petitioner to be an illegal migrant to India by the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara registered a case being 319 (G)/88 in Illegal Migrant (Determination) Tribunal, Goalpara (Goalpara District Case No. 1039/86) was registered. Upon issuance of notice by the Tribunal, the petitioner responded to the same by submitting her written statement and engaging Advocate. Eventually, the proceeding before the Tribunal resulted in ex-parte hearing due to none appearance of the petitioner and the Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 18. 10. 01 held the petitioner to be an illegal migrant under the provision of IM (D) T Act, 1983 and declared that she entered into India on or after 25. 03. 71, i. e. the cut off date. As regards the exparte hearing and judgment, the petitioner has attributed the fault on the part of the engaged Advocate. She claims that because of the said fault on the part of the Advocate engaged by her, she could not produce certain vital documents before the Tribunal.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 18. 10. 01 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing No. 11/03 before the Illegal Migrant (Determination) Appellate Tribunal, Assam. In the appeal she filed an application on 19. 09. 02 praying for certain amendment to the memo of appeal and also for allowing her to file translated copies of the Annexures annexed to the appeal. The application was registered as Misc. Case No. 16/02 and the same was disposed of by order dated 18. 01. 03 rejecting the prayer for amendment and submission of translated copies. The prayer for amendment was vague and also did not conform to the requirements of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. However, the petitioner was given opportunity to move an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. In the order it was held that it is only the certified copy of the voter list which could be admitted for evidence and accordingly it was observed that the petitioner could obtain the certified copy of the same.