MAHIRUDDIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.R Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6. Also heard Ms. N. Upadhyay, learned counsel representing respondent no.2 and Ms. U. Das, learned counsel representing respondent no.4. None, however, appears for respondent no.1.

(2.) The petitioner assails the order / opinion dated 20.06.2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No.6, Barpeta in F.T. Case No.27/2016, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner on his failure to establish his status of citizenship under Section 6 A of the Citizenship Act. The Tribunal had held that the petitioner, Mahir Uddin, Son of Kanta, Village - Baghmarachar, Police Station - Baghbar, District - Barpeta, Assam as the proceedee, had failed to establish his linkage with his projected parents by cogent, reliable and admissible evidence. It was further held that the petitioner / proceedee had failed to prove his relationship with the projected parents whose identities as Indian citizens by birth itself were questionable.

(3.) On a reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta, the Tribunal issued notice and on receipt thereof, the petitioner duly entered appearance and contested the proceeding initially by filing his written statement and later on, evidence on affidavit as D.W.1 along with 6 (six) Nos. documents. The petitioner also adduced evidence of 2 (two) more witnesses to establish the fact that he was a citizen of India not a foreigner within a meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The petitioner produced and exhibited