GUWAHATI, India, June 12 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on May 14:

1. Heard Mr. T. Sk, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.J. Das, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 4 and 8; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the leaned standing counsel for 5; and Mr. H. K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 3 and 7.

2. The learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. (5th), Darrang, Mangaldai, which is arrayed as respondent no.6, is neither a necessary nor a proper party in this writ petition. Accordingly, the name of respondent no.6 is ordered to be struck off.

3. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 29.06.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (5th), Darrang, Mangaldai in Case No. F.T. (V) 1846/2016, arising out of S.P. Enquiry No. 15749/ 98, thereby declaring the petitioner to be an illegal migrant/foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.

4. After service on notice on the proceedings, the petitioner had entered appearance and she had submitted her written statement. In course of time, the petitioner had also tendered her evidence by examining herself as DW-1 and in support of her defence, the petitioner had also examined one Abdul Hai as DW2. The petitioner had exhibited the following documents, viz., (i) Electoral Roll of 1966 (Ext.1); (ii) legacy data of NRC of 1966 (Ext.2); (iii) legacy data of NRC of 1971 (Ext.3); (iv) Gaonburha certificate issued by Gaonburha of Dalgaon Khuti (Ext.4); (v) legacy data of NRC of 1951 (Ext.5); (vi) Gaonburha certificate issued by Gaonburha of No.5 Baruajhar G.P. (Ext.6); (vii) affidavit clarifying the petitioner's name and age (Ext.7).

5. The record received from the Tribunal discloses that the DW-1 was examined and cross-examined on 05.06.2018. The order dated 05.06.2018 does not disclose who had cross-examined the said DW-1. Moreover, the DW-2 was orally examined on 05.06.2018. However, it appears that he was not crossexamined. The presence of the A.G.P. is recorded only in the order 21.06.2018. From the nature of examination recorded in respect of DW-2, it appears to be in the nature of cross-examination rather than an examination-in-chief. Therefore, the Court is inclined to extract hereinbelow of the deposition of the DW-2 recorded on 05.06.2018. I know the OP she is my neighbor. I know since her childhood. I do not know that who are of her parents. Her house was at Jhakua. But in my affidavit I have not stated this. She was 15 yrs at the time of her marriage. She has been casted her votes since 1971. I know the sons of OP. the 2 sons of the OP are declared as Dvoters. The OP has not submitted the NRC of 1951. I have not submitted any false statement.

6. However, while discussing the evidence of DW-2, the learned Tribunal is found to have examined the records of two cases, being, (i) FT 5th, Case No. 825/2016, disposed of by opinion dated 11.05.2018; and (ii) FT 5th Case No. 837/2016, disposed of 28.05.2018, and by referring to the evidence of DW-2 as recorded on those cases and comparing his evidence tendered in the present case in hand, on finding discrepancies in the age of petitioner and her husband, disbelieved the evidence of Abdul Hai (DW-2).

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=rC8SUFuyEFsvB5V61cXUrNGmJjTmBpFyFvL7J%2BHA7EOShXZ8sz11rFPtXwEEWYrS&caseno=WP(C)/5564/2018&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010172162018&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.