GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 30 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Nov. 28:

1. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by putting to challenge the opinion rendered vide impugned order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Foreigners' Tribunal No. 2, Dhubri in F.T. Case No. 733/F/2015 (Police ref. Case No. 709/1998). By the impugned judgment, the petitioner, who was the proceedee before the learned Tribunal, has been declared to be a foreigner post 25.03.1971.

2. The facts of the case may be put in a nutshell as follows:

(i) A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Dhubri, against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid F.T. Case No. 733/F/2015 (Police ref. Case No. 709/1998).

(ii) As per requirement u/s 9 of the Foreigner's Act, 1946 to prove that the proceedee is not a foreigner, the petitioner had filed the written statement along with certain documents and had adduced evidence through himself, a cousin and an Office Assistant of Settlement Office as DWs 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

(iii) The learned Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances and taking into account of the provisions of Section 9 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946 had come to a finding that the petitioner, as opposite party had failed to discharge the burden cast upon him and accordingly, the opinion was rendered declaring the petitioner to be a foreign national post 25.03.1971.

3. We have heard Shri P. C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Deptt. & NRC; Shri P. Sarma, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam; Shri N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI and Ms. H. Gupta, learned CGC. We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide an order dated 15.06.2020.

4. Shri Dey, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could prove his case with cogent evidence and in view of the fact that there was no rebuttal evidence, the learned Tribunal should have accepted the said proof and accordingly hold the petitioner to be a citizen of India. In this regard, he has referred to the evidence on affidavit of the petitioner and following documentary evidence:

(i) Attested certified copy of NRC 1951 (Exbt-1)

(ii) Certified copy of Final Khation of village Chalakura Part 1(Exbt-2)

(iii) Certified extract copy of E/Roll, 1966 (Exbt-3)

(iv) Certified extract copy of E/Roll, 1970 (Exbt-4)

(v) Certified extract copy of E/Roll, 1977 (Exbt-5)

(vi) Certified extract copy of E/Rolf, 1985 (Exbt-6)

(vii) Certified extract copy of E/Roll, 2010 (Exbt-6(i)

(Viii) Photocopy of Voter I. Card, (Exbt-7 and X)

(ix) Certified extract copy of E/Roll, 1966 (Exbt-Y) submitted by DW-2.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1d%2Fg8tS2PSoKO5U2E6qy%2F4sVOoEdqFQ1mU7MI5wtxA7oh&caseno=WP(C)/1699/2020&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010044882020&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.