HUSSAIN KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. AI Ali, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India and Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel for the State of Assam appearing for the Foreigners' Tribunal and Border Areas as well as Ms. G Sarma, learned counsel for the authorities under the Union of India.

(2.) On being referred by the Superintendent of Police (B), Dibrugarh, the F.T. Case No. 2695/02 was registered in the Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh. As the petitioner did not appear, the ex-parte order dated 12.09.2005 was passed which provided that although notice was served in the required manner but the petitioner remained absent, and accordingly, the final order was passed declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner.

(3.) Upon reading the order dated 12.09.2005, we understand that a separate final order was passed. The record reveals the existence of an order under Memo No. F.T. 4/99-2004/2062 containing the order but no date is mentioned therein. Consequently, we understand the undated order to be the order made against the petitioner declaring him to be foreigner. The undated order in paragraph 2 provides that notice was served on the petitioner by hanging as he was not found in the given address. Accordingly, as the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof, he was declared to be foreigner without specifying as to which category of foreigner he was declared, although the order may have required the petitioner to register his name in the Foreigners Regional Registration Authority Office.