HASINA BEGUM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 as well as Ms. A. Borgohain, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.4. None appears for respondent No.1.

(2.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 29.08.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur (1st), Sonitpur, Assam, by which the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Hasina Begum was declared to be a foreigner of post 24.03.1971.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has projected Md. Sofi and Khurma Begum as her grand-parents, of Narahiloidari Village under Teok Police Station of erstwhile Sivasagar District, whose names appeared in the voters list of 1966. It is projected that the grand-father of the petitioner had four sons, namely, (i) Majidur Rahman, (ii) Hussain Ali, (iii) Habibur Rahman, and (iv) Fajar Ali. The petitioner projects that Fajar Ali, her father shifted from Narahiloidari Village to Village- Naosolia under Dergaon P.S. and his name was enrolled in the voters list of 1989. The petitioner was born in the year 1979 and her name was recorded in Moabund Tea Garden High School as Khusbura Begum, where she studied upto Class X and she left the school in the year 1995. It is projected that in or around the year 1999- 2000, the father of the petitioner shifted with his family from VillageNaosolia to Village- Harigaon under Mahabhairab P.S. in Sonitpur District and the name of her father was enrolled in the electoral Roll of constituency No. 73 Tezpur LAC and he was issued a Elector Voter Identity Card. The father of the petitioner had expired on 05.03.2018. The petitioner was married to Khajaluddin Ahmed of Harigaon and the name of the petitioner appeared in the voters list of 2008. It is submitted that in order to prove her citizenship, the petitioner had exhibited sufficient documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned opinion is arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and violative of the petitioner's fundamental right. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned opinion be set aside and quashed and that the petitioner be declared as an Indian citizen.