JONAKI @ SANUARA BEGUM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned CGC for respondent No.1, Mr. A. Kalita, learned standing counsel for the respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 7, Ms. B. Das, learned standing counsel for respondent No.5 and Ms. U. Das, learned standing counsel for respondent No.6.

(2.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 19.12.2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.5, Tezpur at Biswanath Chariali in F.T. Case No. BNC/D/90/2015, holding the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the written statement filed by the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner had projected that she is the daughter of Farid Ali and grand-daughter of Umar Ali, resident of village Burhakhat under Sarabari Gaon Panchayat under Patharighat Revenue Circle, District Darrang and that on 15.03.1993, she was married to Md. Rofik Ali, resident under Dhullie Gaon Panchayat under Biswanath Revenue Circle in the district of Sonitpur. It is submitted that in support of her defence, the petitioner had examined 4 (four) witnesses including herself as PW-1, Farid Ali, her projected father as PW-2, Rajen Kalita, Gaonbura of Burhakhat and Ganga Pukhuri as PW-3 and Ramesh Saharia, Secretary Sarabari Gaon Panchayat as PW-4 and she has exhibited 3 (three) documents viz., (i) certificate by Secretary, Sarabari Gaon Panchayat dated 08.07.2015, containing that the petitioner, daughter of Farid Ali and Sairun Begum of village Burhakhat, aged 40 years was married on 15.03.1993 to Md. Rafik Ali of Diring Pathar No.2 village under Dhullie Gaon Panchayat (Ext.1), (ii) voter details of the year 1966 containing the name of Umar Ali, son of Leteria of village- Burhakhat (Ext.2), and (iii) affidavit to explain that "Jonaki" and "Sanuara Begum" are her names. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in her evidence- on- affidavit, the petitioner had annexed the Elector Photo Identity Card of Umar Ali, her projected grand-father. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said documents clearly established that the father and the grand- father of the petitioner were citizens of India and, as such, the learned Tribunal had erred in holding that the petitioner is a foreigner. It is also submitted that apart from the exhibited documents, the petitioner had relied upon 7 to 8 additional documents before the learned Tribunal to establish that the petitioner is a bona fide citizen of the Country. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal did not consider all the materials available on record and arrived at a wrong conclusion, which had vitiated the impugned opinion, for which the said opinion was liable to be set aside and quashed.