WP(C) 2145/2012. Gauhati High Court

Case NumberWP(C) 2145/2012
Judgement DateMarch 30, 2021
CourtGauhati High Court

WP(C) 2145/2012



o r d e r 30.03.2017

( Ujjal Bhuyan, J )

Heard Mr. F.U. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. P. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel and Mr. G. Pegu, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam.

  1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of I ndia,

    petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 15.03.2012 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon in FT (D) Case No.799/ 2007 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into I ndia (Assam) after 25.03.1971.

  2. FT(D) Case No.799/ 2007 was registered before the Foreigners Tribunal

    (1st), Morigaon (Tribunal) following a reference made by the State with the allegation that petitioner was a foreigner who had illegally entered into I ndia (Assam) from the specified territory after 25.03.1971.

  3. Notice issued by the Tribunal was served upon the petitioner whereafter

    she had entered appearance and filed written statement denying the allegation made against her by contending that she was a citizen of I ndia by birth. Petitioner deposed as her own witness and exhibited a number of documents. On behalf of the State, Local Verification Officer had deposed as PW1 and proved the enquiry report submitted by him as Ext.1. On due consideration, Tribunal passed the order dated 15.03.2012 answering the reference in favour of the State by declaring the petitioner as a foreigner within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 who had illegally entered into I ndia (Assam) after 25.03.1971.

  4. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed.

  5. This Court by order dated 08.05.2012 had issued notice and passed an

    interim order to the effect that petitioner should not be deported from I ndia subject to her appearance before the Superintendent of Police, Morigaon.

  6. Mr. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously argued that

    Tribunal had committed a manifest error by misreading the evidence on record. Petitioner had discharged her burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which could not be dislodged or rebutted by the prosecution. The finding of the Tribunal having suffered from fundamental flaws is liable to be interfered with by this Court. Particularly on the point of lack of cross-examination by the State to the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Manindra Kumar Dey Vs. Mahendra Sukla Baidya, 1999 ( 2) GLR 219 as well as a decision of the

    Supreme Court in Muddasani Venkata Narasaiah Vs. Muddasani Sarojana, ( 2016) 12 SCC 288 . He has also submitted a written argument on behalf of the


  7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the

    submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and contended that Tribunal had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and thereafter returned a finding of fact. Such a finding of fact cannot be said to be based on inadmissible evidence or being vitiated by non-consideration of admissible evidence or based on no evidence. Even if High Court is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT